No quagmire. No invincible Republican Guard. No fierce nationalist resistance. No revolutionary Arab street. No street-fighting Mogadishus in Baghdad. No burning oil wells. No millions of refugees. No surge in oil prices or global depression.

This from the Weekly Standard:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/589wvyte.asp

and this, from the Best of the Web e-mail bulletin of OpinionJournal.com :

.......................
Repent. The End Isn't Nigh.

Three cheers for Chris Matthews, to our knowledge the first Iraq naysayer to admit publicly that he was wrong. (We don't count Nicholas Kristof's grudging, half-assed effort in the New York Times.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/22/opinion/22KRIS.html

In an August column Matthews wrote: "This invasion of Iraq, if it goes off, will join the Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, Desert One, Beirut and Somalia in the history of U.S. military catastrophes. What will set it apart for all time is the immense--and transparent--political stupidity."

The New Haven Register reports on his mea culpa:
"I was wrong about the war," Matthews said in a booming voice, immediately gaining the attention of 600 people at the Omni New Haven Hotel at Yale. . . .

"I thought there would be an Arab revolt, a tremendous uproar," he said. "Nothing happened. I hate being wrong, but I'm glad." . . . He also said he thinks that more antiwar critics should admit they were wrong.

Indeed they should. Most of them, however, are even more shameless than Kristof.

They claim they knew all along it would be a cakewalk; they demand weapons of mass destruction right now (after arguing that Hans Blix and crew should have forever to find them); they harp on every little bit of bad news coming out of Iraq as if it were a disaster.

Remember all the hysteria about looting of hospitals? Now Agence France-Presse reports (you have to scroll all the way down to the bottom of the dispatch to read it) that according to Médecins Sans Frontières there is "no large-scale health crisis" in Iraq.
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/030423/1/3abga.html

"MSF has not found any reason to justify a major humanitarian medical program in Iraq," MSF international president Morten Rostrup tells the wire service.

And what about those revolting Shiites who've been all over the news the past couple of days? "Shias Stage Anti-US Protest" reads a BBC.com headline from yesterday.

You have to read to the 10th paragraph to learn that "the anti-US demonstrations were small-scale, involving only a few hundred people."

[ 25 April 2003: Message edited by: Geneva ]

quote:

---

they demand weapons of mass destruction right now (after arguing that Hans Blix and crew should have forever to find them)

---

Of course, this is assuming that they're correct about these "predictions" being false. That's still pretty much up in the air--in fact, they are probably far more true than is actually being reported. The normal state of affairs, identified long ago by serious critics.

Now that they have basically unfettered access to the country, they should basically have been able to find the weapons really quickly--if they can't, it's likely that either they don't exist or were unusable, either way destroying the main selling point of the war. Inspections before the war would most certainly have required a lot more time--worth taking, considering the risks of war.

In its time it was full of straw men. Now it's filled with irony, as well: "The Taliban will soon be history."

The Taliban are back in control of most of Afghanistan, outside of Kabul.

quote:

---

And there are more of us and we are both smarter and nicer, as well as surprisingly insistent that our culture demands respect, too.

---

Those 'smarter and nicer' people have proven to respect no culture, as they were complicit in the destruction of 7000 years of the history of civilization as we know it.

[ 25 April 2003: Message edited by: Lard tunderin' jeesus ]

LTJ:
OK, Let me accept a moment your contention that Taliban remnants control some marginal parts of Afghanistan (not more) even today: Does that in any way lessen the triumph of forcing them out of national power?

Just the other day I was reading a 2-year anniversary piece about them blowing up the Buddhist monuments in 2001, horrifying the world, and also burning the town of Yakawlaung to the ground.

Thank god they are gone; it was a triumph, esp. for Afghan women. Hitchens is right to point that out.

The same logic covers Saddam: what a break for the average Iraqi to be free of that monster.

[ 25 April 2003: Message edited by: Geneva ]

quote:

---

No quagmire. No invincible Republican Guard. No fierce nationalist resistance. No revolutionary Arab street. No street-fighting Mogadishus in Baghdad. No burning oil wells. No millions of refugees. No surge in oil prices or global depression.

---

The said, Iraq was a clear and present danger to its neighbours, the US and the world. The left said Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction (oh, by the way, where are they?) and that after 10 years of bombings and sanctions had no credible military force.

The right media predicted Mogadishu style street fighting. The left predicted, and still does, a long, drawn out resistance.

It was teh right who predicted burning oil wells as weapon the evil Saddam would use. And the right predicted an increase in oil prices. The left believed oil prices would fall because cheap oil was the primary motivation all along.

As for a depression, read a newspaper.

quote:

---

OK, Let me accept a moment your contention that Taliban remnants control some marginal parts of Afghanistan (not more) even today

---

If that's your idea of acceptance....

But left predicted Iraq did not have the WMD's they were accused of having. Although, the left expected some would be found. But none? Huh.

The left predicted Iraq had a degraded military force.

The left argued the war was an imperialsitic mission to gain controal over the world's second largest reserve of oil, and perhaps the largest, and control oil supplies to Europe, China, Russia, Japan, etc ...

quote:

---

Wait for it, the creativity to follow on this thread will be inspiring.

---

An imminent threat. Justified pre-emptive (illegal) invasion.

So, where is thsi imminent threat. It appears it all up and ran away.

And now the right doesn't even talk about WMD's. Why not? Why doesn't Bush mention them anymore?

[ 25 April 2003: Message edited by: WingNut ]

_massive humanitarian catastrophe, shamelessly citing 500,000 casualties estimated by the UN (a meaningless statistic actually referring to anybody experiencing "trauma" as a result of the war, a truly unhelpful statistic if there is one)

_a Vietnam-like quagmire, complete with mass civilian deaths in the capital

_a Middle East embroiled in a firestorm of death and war

I could go on.

The oil wells were captured before they could be set alight, though several were burned.

I personally don't care about the weapons rationale, I think the US wanted Saddam gone and I'm glad that he is. I'm sure you will make hay with that one until the cows come home and moan about the rape of 7000 years of history or the 'dangerous precedents' being set left and right.

Sorry, ronb, I thought you were about to say something but then you just squeaked and went away. Good choice.

[ 25 April 2003: Message edited by: Chickenbum ]

Having been there, you would know the oil fields were captured before being set alight. I suppose that is why the WMD's weren't used also.

I'm sure you are glad that he is gone. I'm sure you could care less for those who died and those who still suffer.

I am sure you agree with India when they say they have a better reason to launch a pre-emptive strike against Pakistan than the US did against Iraq.

I am sure you are satisfied the oil is safe while untold antiquities from the dawn of civilization have been stolen or destroyed.

I am sure you will agree with North Korea when they say they have a right to pre-emptive strike.

quote:

---

Strange, the star political columnists that I read occasionally predicted:

_massive humanitarian catastrophe, shamelessly citing 500,000 casualties estimated by the UN (a meaningless statistic actually referring to anybody experiencing "trauma" as a result of the war, a truly unhelpful statistic if there is one)

_a Vietnam-like quagmire, complete with mass civilian deaths in the capital

_a Middle East embroiled in a firestorm of death and war

I could go on.

---

We realise full well that you're perfectly capable of going on (and on and on), fabricating what you think those damned commie-liberals in the Star were saying, but without a link or quote or at least a name attached, it's all pretty much worthless ranting.

quote:

---

they demand weapons of mass destruction right now (after arguing that Hans Blix and crew should have forever to find them)

---

quote:

---

We realise full well that you're perfectly capable of going on (and on and on), fabricating what you think those damned commie-liberals in the Star were saying, but without a link or quote or at least a name attached, it's all pretty much worthless ranting.

---

but it you want a categorical yes or no from me about your contention that Taliban control everything outside Kabul, then I say: that is wrong. The coalition and ISAF-allied forces (soon to be NATO-run) and Karzai allies control Afghanistan militarily. Limited skirmishes don't overshadow that fact.

And I don't hear you crying about unmarked graves being found now. Surely that somehow relates to the the number of people the US convicts and executes each year.

[ 25 April 2003: Message edited by: Chickenbum ]

[ 25 April 2003: Message edited by: DaddySno ]

[ 25 April 2003: Message edited by: Lard tunderin' jeesus ]

Jonathan Steele in the Guardian wrote that "...a newly leaked report from a special UN taskforce that summarises the assessments calculates that about 500,000 people could 'require medical treatment to a greater or lesser degree as a result of direct or indirect injuries', according to the World Health Organisation."

quote:

---

They have the run of the country because they can now put thousands of people in it, and, uhh, they did. In any case, there are way more obstacles when dealing with any sovereign country at all then there are in a country that is no longer sovereign. It's a matter of Simple Common Sense.

---

First of all, they put thousands of people in the country. Soldiers. They put soldiers in the country, not thousands of weapons inspectors.
[URL=http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html[/URL]
Take a look here and see how big Iraq is. To investigate a country of this size won't take a couple of weeks. It's a matter of Simple Common Sense.

[ 25 April 2003: Message edited by: DaddySno ]

Edited to add the 'probably', as this is admittedly speculative

[ 25 April 2003: Message edited by: Lard tunderin' jeesus ]

As Markbo always says: wait, give it a year.

[ 25 April 2003: Message edited by: Lard tunderin' jeesus ]

[ 25 April 2003: Message edited by: writer ]

quote:

---

Take a look here and see how big Iraq is. To investigate a country of this size won't take a couple of weeks. It's a matter of Simple Common Sense.

---

quote:

---

Yet another thing the left was saying all along. That's why the left was perplexed with the Bushite's continued stream of invection and misinformation directed towards the UN inspection teams. Chimpy would say that he wanted Iraq disarmed one minute, and then hamper the ability of the UN to do the job the next.

---

It was Bush hampering the UN. All this time I thought it was Saddam. Silly me.

quote:

---

If it takes time to find obscure hidden things, then that's the entire point: they weren't a present danger,

---

quote:

---

Also, the inspectors that went to Iraq were inspectors. They were not there to try to find out where Saddam hid them.

---

Huh? So police inspectors don't try to collect evidence to solve crimes?

quote:

---

Huh? So police inspectors don't try to collect evidence to solve crimes?

---

quote:

---

How can they be hidden when they had satelite photos? How does one hide 14,000 chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons sites? Do not missiles need launchers? Do not chemicals and germs need storage?

---

Well, probably the best person to answer this question is Hans Blix. He admitted to the Guardian last year that, as head of the IAEA before 1991, he managed to overlook Iraq's advanced nuclear weapons programme.

quote:

---

"It's correct to say that the IAEA was fooled by the Iraqis, but the lesson was learned," he says. "Because not seeing something, not seeing an indication of something, does not lead automatically to the conclusion that there is nothing."

---

quote:

---

How foolish peopel are when they want to believe a lie.

---

But they conveniently ignored other UN predictions, like this one from the United Nations Executive Committee for Peace and Security, which predicted what would happen if Saddam remained in power without a war:

quote:

---

the regime may turn even more repressive as it feels secure enough to lash out against presumed opponents. . . There is also likely to be greater pressure on the UN to lift, or at least suspend, sanctions. . . . Monitoring human rights in the country may become even more difficult.

---

This was written in January 2003. Funny how there was no mention at all of "coercive inspections," or anything along the lines of what the peace movement was proposing. Perhaps the UN knew something that peace activists did not. Perhaps they knew that France, Russia and Germany were aiming all along to keep Saddam in power, and end the inspections regime.

[ 25 April 2003: Message edited by: Whazzup? ]

Reason for War? - ABC News

quote:

---

To build its case for war with Iraq, the Bush administration argued that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but some officials now privately acknowledge the White House had another reason for war — a global show of American power and democracy.

Officials inside government and advisers outside told ABCNEWS the administration emphasized the danger of Saddam's weapons to gain the legal justification for war from the United Nations and to stress the danger at home to Americans.

"We were not lying," said one official. "But it was just a matter of emphasis."

---

Later in the article:

quote:

---

The Bush administration felt that a new start was needed in the Middle East and that Iraq was the place to show that it is democracy — not terrorism — that offers hope.

Beyond that, the Bush administration decided it must flex muscle to show it would fight terrorism, not just here at home and not just in Afghanistan against the Taliban, but in the Middle East, where it was thriving.

---

quote:

---

I thought it was the French and Germans and Russians that were pushing for inspectors to stay.

---

And I thought it was the Russians who had been saying all these years that sanctions should be lifted against Iraq. But it turns out they've changed their minds.

This still brings up my original point… define right, here, please.

From the above link:
Hey, look, another peace activist that was wrong:

quote:

---

Former CIA Director James Woolsey said on Nightline this week that although he believed Saddam was a serious threat and had dangerous weapons, going to war to prove a point was wrong.

---

quote:

---

And what do the peace activists not know that the UN does?

---

That avoiding war would not have resulted in "containment, "coercive inspections," or anything like it. Rather, it would have led to the strengthening of Saddam, the worsening of an already appalling human rights record, and the continuing deaths of innocent Iraqis.

quote:

---

So it was really about sending a message? Making a point?

---

Regardless, if no WMD or their precursors are found, it will be a damning stain on this administration’s credibility.

For more on making a point: Our World Historical Gamble

Edited to remove long quotes.

[ 25 April 2003: Message edited by: SHH ]

quote:

---

No quagmire.

---

A quagmire is a situation in which foreign troops are unable to leave the country they occupy because local opposition prevents it from happening. Perhaps the foreign power does not wish to appear to be driven out, so they stay, or perhaps they do not want the alternative to their government which seems to be in the cards.

I would think we will know in about five years whether Iraq has become a quagmire in this sense.
But if the alternative seems to be a Shiite Islamic Republic allied to Iran, will the US just leave?

The gloaters might recall that the Russians invaded Afghanistan, and immediately installed a bright, shiny new government. For a year, there was not much opposition; but for the next ten years, the Russians lost 200 casualties a week.

And lets be clear eyed about the alternatives. Human rights abuses would still happen under Saddam and civilian deaths. But to claim that Saddam is unique in this category strikes me as odd. So, well, does this mean that the world should give Bush complete freedom to invade any and all of these other repressive dictatorships as he see fits and under his own timetable? Is Bush the newest Amnesty International member?

quote:

---

How foolish peopel are when they want to believe a lie.

---

quote:

---

I think that’s been fairly evident for some time now.

Regardless, if no WMD or their precursors are found, it will be a damning stain on this administration’s credibility.

---

It was really a rhetorical question. This thread was started to jeer at the position taken by those on the left regarding this invasion. Since it seems to me that the left was more vocal about the motive behind it than anything else, I find it interesting that even "White House officials" are admitting that they lied. They can call it changing the emphasis, but when it involves forged documents and ludicrously bad intelligence, I call it deception.

quote:

---

For more on making a point: Our World Historical Gamble

---

quote:

---

Along those same lines Josh Marshall weighs in.

---

Clockwork sayz huh???

quote:

---

WWIV? I think that GW2 (Gulf War 2) is more accurate.

---

Dubya Dubya 2?

By going to war the US has disregarded the general principles of law built into the US constitution. There is now a fatal hubris in Washington and the media that they can "spin" anything.

2000 dead civilians and maybe 10000 dead Iraqi soldiers with only 200 American casualties is a far cry from the tens of thousands of dead we feared but it is not insignificant.

quote:

---

By going to war the US has disregarded the general principles of law built into the US constitution.

---

quote:

---

there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution which determines when the country can go to war. It may do so when Congress declares it, and there is no limit on Congress' ability to do so when it is deemed appropriate.

---

I disagree...
Constitutionallity of the US War...

A number of democratic senators challenged both Iraq wars on griounds of constitutionalty. The same principles that prevent the UN from going to war are in the American constitution.

A constitutional expert said:

quote:

---

Gerard Clark, a constitutional law expert at Suffolk University in Boston, noted the United States fought wars in Iraq, Vietnam and Korea in the 20th century -- all without a formal Congressional declaration of war.

"The Constitution does require (Congress to declare war) but through really 50 years of usage, that specific constitutional provision has not been an obstacle to presidents," Clark said.

"I would be very surprised if the court issued an injunction against the president," he said. "Sympathetic as I am to the cause, I don't think it has much chance."

---

This was why there was all the ballyhoo about WMD and to us conspiratorial theorists why 9/11 was allowed to happen - to give credence to the idea that Iraq was a threat...

[ 26 April 2003: Message edited by: Boinker ]

I've been back in Mass for two weeks now and I'm still unable to sleep. I've lost much of what was left of my hearing, despite the earplugs they issued us.

War is hell. Plain and simple. There is only one justification for war: to avert a grater evil. I beleive with all my heart that we did that. Unlike all the stories about Apaches being shot down by farmers, I set my unarmed bird (well, no rockets or missiles) down outside Baghdad and within 1/2 hour we were surrounded by kids and grinning civilians.

A LOT of people died in this war. Most of them had a choice and decided to fight anyway. Very, very few non-combattants were killed, despite what the typically dishonest leftist press tells you. It's only now that I can reflect on the reality of those civilians who were killed and wounded.

quote:

---

"Let's pose the question in the most provocative manner," he wrote on 18 April. "What would have happened if Adolf Hitler had triumphed in World War Two? Would this have turned his war into a just one? Let's assume that Hitler would have indicted his enemies at the Nuremberg war crimes court: Churchill for the terrible air raid on Dresden, Truman for dropping the atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and Stalin for murdering millions in the Gulag camps. Would the historians have regarded this as a just war? A war that ends with the victory of the aggressor is worse than a war that ends with their defeat. It is more destructive, both morally and physically."

---

quote:

---

I see more honor in a 19 year old Marine from inner-city Detroit than I see in any random 10 CNN talking heads.

---

You damn them with faint praise, kiowa.

quote:

---

But if what you were fighting for doesn't match the ideology of those who sent you, don't you feel just a bit cheated/used?

---

Mandos beat me to the question. fighting for what you personally believe in is a noble thing. but this is what the Iranians did as well.

quote:

---

A LOT of people died in this war. Most of them had a choice and decided to fight anyway. Very, very few non-combattants were killed, despite what the typically dishonest leftist press tells you. It's only now that I can reflect on the reality of those civilians who were killed and wounded.

---

this is the problem. what is "very, very few"? perhaps you mean few Iraqi civilians as compared to Iraqi soldiers, or perhaps you mean few Iraqi civilians in terms of a percentage of the entire population. otherwise, this is puzzling to me. the number of deaths reported to this point in the media now exceeds two thousand. given that not all civilian deaths are reported, and that the US Army famously does not do body counts, this is probably a low estimate. if you believe that the media is "dishonest," that's alright, but i'm not sure how you might personally be availed of better information simply by the fact of your being in the country; after all, those reporters were there too.

rather more disturbing is something like this: prior to the war, at a conference organised by the State Department, the number of acceptable civilian casualties was being discussed. the number agreed on was two hundred and fifty thousand.

that aside, i personally don't think that two thousand is a small number of people. nor can i believe that those deaths, "while tragic," were inevitable or necessary to the project of regime change. and this is the thing: there were alternatives that were never allowed to go ahead.

[ 27 April 2003: Message edited by: Mohamad Khan ]

So we defeated communism, does that make us better? I just got done writing an essay on 1950s Guatemala, and it lead into a bit of research to other latin American countries. I don't really know if our "defeat" of communism can really be considered a checkmark in our corner if you consider 200 000 dead and 1 million displaced in Guatemala alone, as it was done and supported for anti communism reasons.

See I don't really know if what the west considers is right definately is right for the rest of the world. Democracy is a great system and should spread, but does American democracy really work? Do American freedoms really work for other people? So how can might enforce them. And if one says that the Americans are fighting in Iraq for that reason then I wanna ask why are the Americans pushing so hard at setting up a government system that reflects there own? What if Iraq wants a socialist government? Or a fundamentalist government, ie they choose it, will they be givin it? And where is their freedom in determining which factions are incontrol of their country, since we already know a new faction is being introduced into Iraq, the American Business?

quote:

---

Democracy is a great system and should spread, but does American democracy really work?

---

The first part of this question is interesting but is it true? Why is democtacy better than the tried and true traditional systems of governance in accordance with accepted moral codes? Did the middle ages fail to meet the needs of the citizenry and did the so called enlightenment (which ultimately led to the industrial revolution) really emancipate the population?

Democracy is merely a label given to cover up the real battles against the capitalist and aristicratic overlords. It wasn't a question of the masses being ignorant and incapable of self government it was a question of them being exploited and oppressed by the ruling class.

Any honest assessment of the political reality in the United States today could hardly conclude that it was a true democracy. That is, a democracy is not a popularity contest. The only meaningful sense the word can have is when it is associated with the idea of a social democracy. That is, democracy is not a situation where people dutifully follow the dictates of the ruling majority and make every effort to be part of that ruling majority to obtain state favours and priviledge. Democracy means the maximum benefit for the greatest number of people, communities, religious faiths, etc., etc.

This is sadly lacking in the United States right now.

I have little interest in listening to soldiers explain that they are tolerant and understanding after they have just finished willingly participating in a war of aggression that is mainly for betterment of the American ruling class.

It is unbelievable that grown adults would think that they have done something noble and socially valuable by contributing to this war effort.

Is Iraq really better off as a result of the US army? It is not. It is worse off. It is delusional to think that something meaningful has been accomplished in terms of social democracy.

If these same soldiers were to participate in a meaningful comprehensive aid program, in providing for the Iraqi people as is provided for under the Geneva convention, (as they are the occupying force), then the situation might be different. But the sooner US GIs realize they have been the puppets and hitpersons for the US oil lobby and move on the healthier they will be for it and the better they will sleep at night.

[ 28 April 2003: Message edited by: Boinker ]

quote:

---

Earlier today, Lt. Col. Ted Martin of the 10th Cavalry said one of a dozen 55-gallon drums in an open field had tested positive for cyclosarin, a nerve agent, and for a blister agent that could have been mustard gas. He said his soldiers had also found two mobile labs containing equipment for mixing chemicals. The labs had been looted by the time the soldiers arrived.

But in an interview tonight, Capt. Ryan Cutchin, the leader of Mobile Exploitation Team Bravo, or MET Bravo, said that after surveying the site, near the northern Iraqi town of Bayji, his team believed that the earlier reports were wrong.

"Our tests showed no positive hits at all," he said.

The mobile labs were definitely "not labs," Captain Cutchin said. The vehicles MET Bravo found were "probably for decontamination or some kind of fuel filling, consistent with the rockets found at the site," he said.

---

quote:

---

Did the middle ages fail to meet the needs of the citizenry and did the so called enlightenment (which ultimately led to the industrial revolution) really emancipate the population?

Democracy is merely a label given to cover up the real battles against the capitalist and aristicratic overlords. It wasn't a question of the masses being ignorant and incapable of self government it was a question of them being exploited and oppressed by the ruling class.

---

The first statement is ludicrous. Do you imagine circa AD1390 "Europe" to be a utopia, with low birth rates, fluoride-treated water and free contraceptives?

quote:

---

The first statement is ludicrous.

---

Now compare that with your own life. We work 5 days a week just to survive, for 50 years, getting up each day and drudging off to whatever workplace we go to. Our reward is not a living breathing peasant farm or a favourite cow but a costly, polluting, heap of narcicistic junk called the modern automobile.

And sure it is ridiculous we spend 30 billion a year on healthcare 70% of which is spent on keeping the infirm and elderly alive at all costs with minimum dignity and in comfort directly related to one's socioeconomic staus. No one goes out to the hilltop lies on a funeral pile and just dies any more.

quote:

---

Do you imagine circa AD1390 "Europe" to be a utopia, with low birth rates, fluoride-treated water and free contraceptives?

---

I am sure human beings frolicked and had wild orgies in a natural setting and goodness knows there were probably lots of babies born out of wedlock. But there were fewer people back then and in the sparse communities situated in a vast commons that belonged to no one perhaps there was a lot more tolerance in some cases.

quote:

---

Democracy a label? A more fundamental aspect of life couldn't be found than the burden or freedoms of the society you are born into.

---

This is an interesting statement. I am not taking this debate too seriously so please indulge me a little but isn't a bit of an oxymoron to say "burden of freedoms"? What do you mean by this?
Is freedom a burden? To me freedom is freedom. It means having no conditional obligations no restraints based on birth or lineage.

,

quote:

---

until you die and are rewarded by 99 nubile virgins.

---

And if you are a woman what is the reward?

quote:

---

Exploitation is another bag that will never disappear

---

But I thought that by blowing up a country and killing two thousand innocent civilians you could end tyranny and exploitation, melt down the gold bathroom fixtures the Bush clan laments and criticizes.

[ 28 April 2003: Message edited by: Boinker ]

Believe it or not we fight for you. As an American I can only go so far in expressing my opinoins here. But I can tell you that Bruce Rolston over at flit.com is honorable. A Candian soldier. A man whom I would trust not only my own life but the lives of my children.

YOU FUCKING FUCKING ASSHOLES!!!

YOU MOTHERFUCKERS IN THE CIA AND CENTCOM!!

quote:

---

A more fundamental aspect of life couldn't be found than the burden or freedoms of the society you are born into.

---

A couple of points to open up some discussion...

Democracy is merely a technique: a particular way of deciding political issues. However, there is nothing inherently 'freeing' about it - it is very easy for the masses to rope themselves in using the very 'freedom' that you seem to be confusing with a technique. Recent history in the
United States shows that democratically elected leaders and their appointed attaches have managed to enact a law - the Patriot Act - which abrogates a number of the most fundamental tenets of the American Constitution. In fact, it can clearly be seen that the intention of having a Constitution which sets out basic issues was due to the American Founding Fathers' distrust of mob-rule/democracy. It is a simple thing to scare the submissive herds into 'voting' away their freedom. In case you don't believe this, have a look around you....

quote:

---

Ineraction with civil society.

---

OK this is your definition of freedom then? It is a fair one but what do you mean civil society? is it limited to that? Is there no absolute freedom? I am aware that there isn't very much political support for the idea but I wonder...

quote:

---

Believe it or not we fight for you.

---

I believe that you think this is true. And if you think it and then go and kill somebody in a far away land then I can understand why you think you have done something on my behalf. And as I believe in freedom of expression I think it is healthy that you express this belief.

But I do not endorse any of it! You did not fight for me you fought for your government. You did so because you were ordered to do so. You could not refuse conscientiously AND remain a soldier. You took the easier path of accepting what Rumsfeld and others like him have told the troops since whenever - that it was for "freedom and democracy" - bunk! It was for the oil my friend.

Hussein did not threaten MY freedom or yours. His tyranny as brutal as it was did not kill 2000 people in a month. His military did not have the capacity to blow up a city whereas the force that you belong to could easily wipe out all livings things on the planet...

More importantly to this discussion is that I opposed the war. I did not accept any of the bogus claims that you were defending my liberty when your government cannot even ditinguish between liberty and imperialism.

quote:

---

As an American I can only go so far in expressing my opinoins here.

---

I understand that and i appreciate your comments.

quote:

---

But I can tell you that Bruce Rolston over at flit.com is honorable
A Candian soldier. A man whom I would trust not only my own life but the lives of my children...

---

I don't know the man but I think it a sign of something that you find it important to name at least one Canadian who has old fashioned "honour". Let me assure you that there are likely many more even or especially in the military.Some of them no doubt opposed the war and still do not agree that the rationale was sound and made sense.

quote:

---

We fight for you, too dude. Ironically, I would literally die for you

---

Please do not fight for me friend - make love (in the best sense of the word)...

And DO NOT DIE FOR ME. As one of your greates popular philosophers says - just "live well and prosper"!

Well bud, there isnt't much mre to hang on to on a warm morning in Kuwait when your pilot takes you 5 clicks beyond where you were supposed to be...

There is a fundamental fifference bewtween the Kiowa, the AC130 "spooky", and the Apache that most people hear bour. There are five Kiowa'a in the air for every Apache (which is basically an airborne tank, unless it's spotted first, in which case it's flying (briefly) coffin.

I hope this gets posted. I love trading ideas with you smares. Not everyyone who wears stripes is an (IDIOT - testing cntcom, fuck you, free speech, get used to it).

SFuckers in Boston, PA, and NYC who should have known better.

I'm sure your description of the 13th c. peasant is tongue in cheek, because we all know that despite the occasional orgy with the drunken troubadours and the milkmaids life was not the slice of pie it is today.

I can't really relate to your outlook on life...if you have that much trouble getting up in the morning then I can sympathize perhaps but that's it. Comparatively our lives are pretty cozy...we work 8 hours per day, have lots of free time, eat all we want, blah blah blah. Of course someone will say we are the victims of Western decadence but hey, I have to tell ya they don't live all that badly in Cairo, Brazil or Mongolia either. Comparatively.

quote:

---

live long and prosper... jesus.

---

Jesus is an explicative and Mr. Spock the citation then?

Thank you, I stand corrected.

quote:

---

Boinker, I enjoyed your post but just wanted to point out that I said "burden OR freedom," meaning to point out the framing of one's outlook on life, state-controlled or "free," if one wants to say that

---

You said

quote:

---

A more fundamental aspect of life couldn't be found than the burden or freedoms of the society you are born into.

---

Or is not a mutually exclusive conjunction. It implies in such a context interchangeability.

But the "burden of freedom" is a concept and that is what I thought you were alluding to. That is, absolute freedom being derived from the total sum of all possibility has some evil consequences. The burden of freedom is determining how to avoid these consequences.

If this war was simply about freedom and democracy then why does it need all the propoganda and moralistic justification? The people of the US elected Bush (O.K. they didn't but lets just pretend they did ) so you have the "democracy" component. Now Bush wants to destroy the Iraqi state to obtain the oil reserves and has the capacity to do it and goes ahead and does it. He was free from any constraint ultimately and did not submit to the general opposition by other nations. The US acted "freely".

So why does it need excuses if the moral values the US espouses, simple "freedom and democracy", are all that matters?

Why do we always say that "with freedom comes responsibility"(in sombre tones and with great melodrama)?

It is a crutch. Freedom is very powerful. It simply means the total realm of possibility and perhaps even the impossible. Human society shapes this power by constraining it for some social purpose.

I don't think you meant "or" in any case. I think you meant "of" but just didn't realize it.

missing is any news, any details at all actually, about the extent and depth of Taliban "comeback", the area if any it controls , the state of its command and popular support (zero).

On all the above, the answer is, I think, absolutely minimal. What I have read is not too frightening on that score. Sure, there are occasional skirmishes in extreme and remote border areas with ISAF/coalition forces, and a few bombings in the interior.

But, to confuse that with effective control of Afghanistan?? No.

As for the lack of great benefits of toppling the Taliban and "promises unkept", etc, I refer you to my thread here a while ago about the enrolment for the 2nd complete year of schooling since the ouster of Taliban:
The number of students in schools has soared, the content is of course drastically altered, in part with UNICEF/NGO help, and the number of school buildings renovated has increased steadily.

From zero(0) per cent before the war, the percentage of girls attending has climbed to well over 40 per cent, and UNICEF expects that to climb past half next year.

The country was in total ruins from the Soviet invasion and subsequent civil wars. Many posters have some notion it was promised to be Scandinavia -- and soon! It won't be.

But it is sure as hell better off, by every measure than under the Taliban.

[ 30 April 2003: Message edited by: Geneva ]

quote:

---

U.S. troops opened fire on Wednesday for the second time this week on an angry crowd in the Iraqi town of Falluja, near Baghdad.

src: http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2657198

---

quote:

---

Believe me that nobody wanted that to happen, and everyone certainly hopes that these incidents will not continue.

---

quote:

---

taking responsibility for your own actions

---

That is a fair criticism. I honestly do not have a very good response for you right now. This is certainly not something which should be dismissed by conservatives.

quote:

---

So what brought you to the babble board, kiowa?

---

quote:

---

ONE MIGHT CONCLUDE THAT HAMID Karzai, the interim head of the Afghan government, is doing well. Foreign dignitaries visit frequently, relief work is going on, and streetlights have been installed in Kabul by a German firm. The Japanese are constructing apartment buildings, and the Afghan national army is in the process of being constituted. The Taliban-Al Qaeda network has been broken; its leaders vanished. Nearly 18 months after September 11, Afghanistan could be said to be sailing along.

But there is another side to this picture: Karzai just narrowly escaped an assassination attempt last September; Vice President Haji Abdul Qadir, a prominent Pashtun leader, was killed on July 6, 2002, by unknown assailants; and Aviation Minister Haji Abd-ur-Rehaman was killed on February 14, 2002, by angry pilgrims whose plans to fly to Mecca were crushed when no flight was available. Outside the capital, the rule of warlords prevails. In the countryside, poppy cultivation has not only resumed, production is approaching historic highs, and quality heroin is now being supplied to Europe and America from newly established factories in different parts of Afghanistan. Hit-and-run attacks on U.S. troops, military installations, and airbases are a daily routine. Above all, despite all the political help he has received from the international community, President Karzai has not been able to extend the government's reach much beyond Kabul.

---

quote:

---

Soldiers and police -- who were to have been retrained by U.S. and other troops involved in an international security force also largely limited to the capital -- "regularly abduct and rape women, girls and boys," Freih said.

"Religious fundamentalism is on the rise, with new restrictions on freedom of expression and movement of women and girls. Gains in education are now at risk as many parents, afraid of attacks by troops and other gunmen, keep their daughters out of school," she said.

---

quote:

---

The central dogma of American politics right now is that George W. Bush, whatever his other failings, has been an effective leader in the fight against terrorism. But the more you know about the state of the world, the less you believe that dogma. The Iraq war, in particular, did nothing to make America safer — in fact, it did the terrorists a favor.

How is the war on terror going? You know about the Riyadh bombings. But something else happened this week: The International Institute for Strategic Studies, a respected British think tank with no discernible anti-Bush animus, declared that Al Qaeda is "more insidious and just as dangerous" as it was before Sept. 11. So much for claims that we had terrorists on the run.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Geneva:
a major post-Iraq war theme in conservative on-line media:
U.S. and other left-liberals called the war and its consequences wrong. Completely:

No quagmire. No invincible Republican Guard. No fierce nationalist resistance. No revolutionary Arab street. No street-fighting Mogadishus in Baghdad. No burning oil wells. No millions of refugees. No surge in oil prices or global depression.

---

More interesting when you look back at this--when $35 was considered a rise.

Today, that would get you 1/2 a barrel of oil and 1/2 a barrel of Persian Gulf seawater.

Or the time when the right claimed some 15 of the 19 regions in Iraq were "safe"--how many of them were lining up at the travel agent to book their next vacation there?

quote:

---

mob rule

---

Your offer to Bush to pay you a visit will be politely declined if you decide to serve pretzels.

quote:

---

The prediction, in fact, was 10 of thousands of casualties. Do you know how many there were?

---

... and drumroll, please ...

quote:

---

Exact Death Toll of Iraqis Remains Murky

Three years into the war, one grim measure of its impact on Iraqis can be seen at Baghdad's morgue: There, the staff has photographed and catalogued more than 24,000 bodies from the Baghdad area alone since 2003, almost all killed in violence.

Despite such snapshots, the overall number of Iraqi civilians and soldiers killed since the U.S.-led invasion in spring 2003 remains murky. Bloodshed has worsened each year, pushing the Iraqi death toll into the tens of thousands. But no one knows the exact toll.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

aka the Cheney/Bush mafia.

---

Quoting Chris Matthews....

quote:

---

. .
He also said he thinks that more antiwar critics should admit they were wrong.

Indeed they should. Most of them, however, are even more shameless than Kristof.

---

This just shows that people should stick to their guns, even when an attempt is made to steamroll minority opinion. It seems to me that it is hard to arguer that our fears about a quagmire in Iraq were unfounded.

This applies to Afghanistan, where there is the beginning of a campaign to get us all to shut up, and "support the troops" as the disingenuous phrase has it.

Canadian troops will be tolerated and used by whatever war lords benefit from their presence until they are no longer of any use and then theyy will cast out the way all 'helpful' invaders have been in the past.

And what is this "critically left of centre" crap? I hate it when people who defend the centre-right orthodoxy that rules our society think they actually have some quirky, independent, critical perspective on things. Between this kind of crap and your climate denial, Geneva, you are not critically left of centre, you are just a right-winger, maybe with some window dressing of social liberalism and redistribution. So why not own it?

[ 10 March 2006: Message edited by: rasmus raven ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasmus raven:
Geneva's one of those who doesn't have the intellectual honesty to admit they are wrong when they are totally called out and taken down -- it's just slink away and hide when logic and facts utterly demolish what you've said.

---

But since the war has turned into a complete quagmire and disaster, and the pro-war hawks have been shown to be wrong about virtually everything, no apology is required... Just slink away and pretend that nothing happened.

[ 10 March 2006: Message edited by: Albireo ]

A distinguished list of American generals and officials were fired or forced into retirement for predicting the US would need 200,000 troops or the war would cost hundreds of millions of dollars. And now even those estimates are proving to be conservative, as the occupation continues to bleed the US treasury.

I haven't read through it, but I don't mind moving it there.

Ah, just glanced through and I see why you want it moved there. Okay. Will do.

[ 11 March 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]