Catastrophic Success

[Honolulu_Blue]

Catastrophic Success

The worse Iraq gets, the more we must be winning.

By William*Saletan
Posted Tuesday, Sept. 28, 2004, at 2:53 PM PT

In 1999, George W. Bush said we needed to cut taxes because the economy was doing so well that the U.S. Treasury was taking in too much money, and we could afford to give some back to the people who earned it. In 2001, Bush said we needed the same tax cuts because the economy was doing poorly, and we had to return the money so that people would spend and invest it.

Bush's arguments made the wisdom of cutting taxes unfalsifiable. In good times, tax cuts were affordable. In bad times, they were necessary.

Whatever happened proved that tax cuts were good policy. When Congress approved the tax cuts, Bush said they would revive the economy. You'd know that the tax cuts had worked, because more people would be working. Three years later, more people aren't working. But in Bush's view, that, too, proves he was right. If more people aren't working, we just need more tax cuts.
Now Bush is playing the same game in postwar Iraq. When violence there was subsiding, he said it proved he was on the right track. Now violence is increasing, and Bush says this, too, proves he's on the right track.

On July 23, 2003, three months into the occupation, Bush scoffed that Iraqi insurgents were confined to "a few areas of the country. And wherever they operate, they are being hunted, and they will be defeated.*... Now, more than ever, all Iraqis can know that the former regime is gone and will not be coming back." A week later, he assured reporters, "Conditions in most of Iraq are growing more peaceful.*... As the blanket of fear is lifted, as Iraqis gain confidence that the former regime is gone forever, we will gain more cooperation." Bush warned that failure to stick with his policies "would only invite further and bolder attacks."

A year later, the insurgents are not defeated, conditions are not more peaceful, the blanket of fear is spreading, cooperation is fraying, and attacks on U.S. personnel are growing bolder. Does this prove Bush is failing? No. It proves he's succeeding.

When the violence increased this spring, Bush, Vice President Cheney, and White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said insurgents were growing "desperate" in their efforts to "derail the transition"—the handover of sovereignty scheduled for June 30. "This is precisely what our enemies want," Bush argued. The violence proved Bush was on the right track, and the handover would soon be complete, demoralizing the enemy. The insurgents would be crushed. "In Fallujah, Marines of Operation Vigilant Resolve are taking control of the city, block by block," Bush bragged.

Three months after the handover, the attacks continue to escalate. Fallujah is completely out of control. Is this failure? No, it's success. Things are getting even worse because we're doing even better. Now it's the January 2005 Iraqi elections, not the June 2004 handover, that's supposedly inspiring the enemy's desperation. If we stay the course till January, we'll turn that corner we thought we'd turned in June. "Yes, it's getting worse, and the reason it's getting worse is that they are determined to disrupt the election," Secretary of State Colin Powell insisted Sunday on This Week. "And because it's getting worse, we will have to increase our efforts to defeat it." Bush understands that the resistance is evidence that history is on our side. As he explained Tuesday, the violence is growing "because people are trying to stop the march of freedom."

If the situation in Iraq improves in the coming weeks, Bush will take credit. If it deteriorates, he'll take credit for that, too. "Terrorist violence may well escalate as the January elections draw near," he warned Thursday. "The terrorists know that events in Iraq are reaching a decisive moment. If elections go forward, democracy in Iraq will put down permanent roots, and terrorists will suffer a dramatic defeat." So take heart. We've got 'em right where we want 'em.

[EagleFan]

:rolleyes:

[gstelmack]

I thought Bush said it would get worse before it gets better. Now I'm going to have to see if I can hunt down those speeches...

[Arles]

Welcome to the instant gratification society. If it takes more than 10 minutes, it's a quagmire. All wars are supposed to be like Nerds vs. Noobs on Unreal Tournament with complete victories in 35 minutes.

[John Galt]

Welcome to the instant gratification society. If it takes more than 10 minutes, it's a quagmire. All wars are supposed to be like Nerds vs. Noobs on Unreal Tournament with complete victories in 35 minutes.

You can't fully blame the public when the media and administration have created this impression. And when an administration NEVER admits things aren't going "as planned," then I think blaming an "instant gratification society" is a little disengenuous.

[GrantDawg]

Welcome to the instant gratification society. If it takes more than 10 minutes, it's a quagmire. All wars are supposed to be like Nerds vs. Noobs on Unreal Tournament with complete victories in 35 minutes.
Or at least be improving when the leaders say it is improving (even though all solid evidence including his own intellgence reports say it is not).

[GrantDawg]

You can't fully blame the public when the media and administration have created this impression. And when an administration NEVER admits things aren't going "as planned," then I think blaming an "instant gratification society" is a little disengenuous.
Jinx. You owe me a coke.

[John Galt]

Jinx. You owe me a coke.

I think FOFC rules clearly dictate that whoever posts first is the winner. You owe me a trout.

[GrantDawg]

I think FOFC rules clearly dictate that whoever posts first is the winner. You owe me a trout.
Ah, but childhood rules (which we know trumps all other rules) state that the first one to call it gets the prize (which in this case is a Coke, since I'm from South).

[John Galt]

Ah, but childhood rules (which we know trumps all other rules) state that the first one to call it gets the prize (which in this case is a Coke, since I'm from South).

I was almost ready to believe you, but then I read, "This message was approved by Grantdawg because he doesn't know any bettter." So, where's my trout?

[Swaggs]

Welcome to the instant gratification society. If it takes more than 10 minutes, it's a quagmire. All wars are supposed to be like Nerds vs. Noobs on Unreal Tournament with complete victories in 35 minutes.

Please don't call it 10 minutes or compare it to 35 minutes of a video game until you go enlist or get commisioned into the Armed Forces and go to Iraq for 8-12 months with limited communication to your family.

For those of us with families and friends that have been in Iraq for the past year, it seems a hell of a lot longer than 10 minutes.

[GrantDawg]

I was almost ready to believe you, but then I read, "This message was approved by Grantdawg because he doesn't know any bettter." So, where's my trout?
Yes, but you quote one of the most over-rated movies in the history of man in your sig. I think if you'll look at the case Finders Keepers v. Losers Weepers, you will see that you still owe me a Coke.


BTW, what was this thread about again?

[Buddy Grant]

Even a catastrophic success is still technically a success. It just shows to go you, some people are never satisfied.

[KWhit]

Welcome to the instant gratification society. If it takes more than 10 minutes, it's a quagmire. All wars are supposed to be like Nerds vs. Noobs on Unreal Tournament with complete victories in 35 minutes.
Well, when the Commander-in-Chief says "Mission Accomplished" what exactly are we supposed to think?

[John Galt]

Yes, but you quote one of the most over-rated movies in the history of man in your sig. I think if you'll look at the case Finders Keepers v. Losers Weepers, you will see that you still owe me a Coke.


BTW, what was this thread about again?

"We believe in nothing, [Grantdawg]. Nothing. And tomorrow we come back and we cut off your chonson."

[Glengoyne]

So, where's my trout?
Where all trouts end up at FoFC?

[Arles]

You can't fully blame the public when the media and administration have created this impression.

Bush in Jan 2003 speech:
Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a President can make. The technologies of war have changed; the risks and suffering of war have not. For the brave Americans who bear the risk, no victory is free from sorrow. This nation fights reluctantly, because we know the cost and we dread the days of mourning that always come.

Bush in Feb 2003:
"Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including our own: we will remain in Iraq as long as necessary"

"Much is asked of America in this year 2003. The work ahead is demanding. It will be difficult to help freedom take hold in a country that has known three decades of dictatorship, secret police, internal divisions, and war. It will be difficult to cultivate liberty and peace in the Middle East, after so many generations of strife."

Bush in May 2003 (aircraft carrier speech):
"We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime who will be held to account for their crimes.

The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done and then we will leave and we will leave behind a free Iraq."

Bush in July 2003:
The creation of a strong and stable Iraqi democracy is not easy, but it's an essential part on the war against terror. By helping to build and secure a free Iraq, by accepting the risks and sacrifice, our men and women in uniform are protecting our own countries, and they're giving essential service in the war on terror. This is the work history has given us, and we will complete it.

Bush in Sept 2003:
In Iraq, we are helping the long-suffering people of that country to build a decent and democratic society at the centre of the Middle East. Together we are transforming a place of torture chambers and mass graves into a nation of laws and free institutions. This undertaking is difficult and costly, yet worthy of our country and critical to our security.

Two years ago, I told the Congress and the country that the war on terror would be a lengthy war, a different kind of war, fought on many fronts in many places. Iraq is now the central front. Enemies of freedom are making a desperate stand there -- and there they must be defeated. This will take time and require sacrifice. Yet we will do what is necessary, we will spend what is necessary, to achieve this essential victory in the war on terror, to promote freedom and to make our own nation more secure.

Bush in Nov 2003:
"The work we are in is not easy, yet it is essential. The failure of democracy in Iraq would provide new bases for the terrorist network and embolden terrorists and their allies around the world. The failure of democracy in those countries would convince terrorists that America backs down under attack. Yet democracy will succeed in Iraq, because our will is firm and our word is good. Democracy will succeed because every month, more and more Iraqis are fighting for their own country. People we have liberated will not surrender their freedom. Democracy will succeed because the United States of America will not be intimidated by a bunch of thugs."

"This community knows firsthand that the mission in Iraq is difficult and the enemy is dangerous. Saddam loyalists and foreign terrorists are attacking the symbols of order and freedom, from international aid workers to coalition forces to innocent Iraqi citizens. Terrorists have chosen to make a stand and test our resolve. Our resolve will not be shaken."

You can get all the transcripts here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/

Bush has mentioned the difficulty and the long process of winning and rebuilding in Iraq numerous times since 2002. Yet, I can't find once instance where he even inferred it would be easy or just not difficult.

So, I will certainly give you the media on this, but saying that Bush did not properly alert the public to the difficulty in Iraq is simply not true. As I've posted above, he's mentioned the difficulty of the Iraq mission in nearly every speech.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

And when an administration NEVER admits things aren't going "as planned," then I think blaming an "instant gratification society" is a little disengenuous.
Wait, I thought there wasn't a plan? Or did John Kerry change his mind on this too?

[John Galt]

Hubbard Oct 2002: “Costs of any such intervention would be very small.”

Rumsfeld Feb 2003: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

Rumsfeld Feb 2003: "There is no question but that they would be welcomed... Go back to Afghanistan, the people were in the streets playing music, cheering, flying kites, and doing all the things that the Taliban and the al-Qaeda would not let them do."

Rumsfeld Feb 2003: “What is, I think, reasonably certain is the idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far from the mark.”

Wolfowitz Mar 2003: "The Iraqi people understand what this crisis is about. Like the people of France in the 1940s, they view us as their hoped-for liberator."

Myers Mar 2003: "What you'd like to do is have it be a short, short conflict...Iraq is much weaker than they were back in the '90s, [when its forces were routed from Kuwait.]"

Wolfowitz Mar 2003: “The oil revenues of Iraq could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.”

Wolfowitz Mar 2003: "The notion that it would take several hundred thousand American troops just seems outlandish."

Bush May 2003: “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.”

Cheney Sept 2003: “I think has been fairly significant success in terms of putting Iraq back together again…and certainly wouldn't lead me to suggest or think that the strategy is flawed or needs to be changed.”

Bremer Oct 2003: "Well, a lot of wonderful things have happened in Iraq since July, as you mentioned...the overall thrust is in the right direction, and the good days outnumber the bad days, and that's the thing you need to keep in perspective."

Bush Oct 2003: "It's a lot better than you probably think. Just ask people who have been there. They're stunned when they come back -- when they go to Iraq and the stories they tell are much different from the perceptions that you're being told life is like."

Rice Nov 2003: "If you look at how much the Governing Council has actually been able to achieve in terms of an economic program, in terms of overseeing ministries that have done things like a, thus far, very successful currency reform and exchange, a lot has been achieved by that group."

Rumsfeld Nov 2003: "The [insurgency] problem is in control."

Bremer Apr 2004: "Well, first of all, we were greeted as liberators, and we are still viewed by many Iraqis as liberators."


You can quote all of the Bush saying "it will be difficult" quotes you want - the administration was spoken out of both sides of its mouth on this and hollow, vague statements about taking time and work are meaningless.

[John Galt]

Wait, I thought there wasn't a plan? Or did John Kerry change his mind on this too?

Since I'm not John Kerry, I have no idea what your ad hom is about.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Since I'm not John Kerry, I have no idea what your ad hom is about.Senator Kerry's new ad.

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=37113

http://www.johnkerry.com/video/092904_reasons.html (http://www.johnkerry.com/video/092904_reasons.html)

"Bush Rushed To War With No Plan To Win The Peace." A common sentiment expressed by the opposition to the war.

How can the President admit when things "aren't going as planned", when as the opposition asserts, there was "no plan"?

Sorry,can't have it both ways.

[John Galt]

Senator Kerry's new ad.

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=37113

http://www.johnkerry.com/video/092904_reasons.html (http://www.johnkerry.com/video/092904_reasons.html)

"Bush Rushed To War With No Plan To Win The Peace." A common sentiment expressed by the opposition to the war.

How can the President admit when things "aren't going as planned", when as the opposition asserts, there was "no plan"?

Sorry,can't have it both ways.

Strange that you seemed to miss that I'm NOT John Kerry. I don't choose to have it both ways. I haven't EVER argued Bush has had no plan in Iraq. The fact that someone else has is irrelevant to this discussion.

Edit: It also seems strange to me that you feel those two opinions are even in contradiction. A person can have "No Plan to Win the Peace" and still have "A Plan."

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Strange that you seemed to miss that I'm NOT John Kerry. I don't choose to have it both ways. I haven't EVER argued Bush has had no plan in Iraq. The fact that someone else has is irrelevant to this discussion.

Strange that you seemed to miss that I didn't call you John Kerry.

You made a point that you can't blame the media when a President won't admit when things aren't going "as planned". I pointed out there are others who think that there was never any plan to begin with, including a Presidential candidate.

[Arles]

First of all, Hubbard is an economist, not in the military and he was answering a question regarding the monetary cost compared to other large-scale wars.

I see nothing in here stating the entire process in Iraq would be quick and easy. Most of Rumsfeld's quotes involve the strategies with the major combat operations. He was on record on numerous other occasions talking about the entire Iraq conflict lasting years.

And, maybe I'm a little slow today, but could you please explain to me how any of these quotes imply the Iraq mission will be quick and easy:

Wolfowitz Mar 2003: "The Iraqi people understand what this crisis is about. Like the people of France in the 1940s, they view us as their hoped-for liberator."

Wolfowitz Mar 2003: “The oil revenues of Iraq could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.”

Bremer Apr 2004: "Well, first of all, we were greeted as liberators, and we are still viewed by many Iraqis as liberators.

Cheney Sept 2003: “I think has been fairly significant success in terms of putting Iraq back together again…and certainly wouldn't lead me to suggest or think that the strategy is flawed or needs to be changed.”

Bremer Oct 2003: "Well, a lot of wonderful things have happened in Iraq since July, as you mentioned...the overall thrust is in the right direction, and the good days outnumber the bad days, and that's the thing you need to keep in perspective."

Rice Nov 2003: "If you look at how much the Governing Council has actually been able to achieve in terms of an economic program, in terms of overseeing ministries that have done things like a, thus far, very successful currency reform and exchange, a lot has been achieved by that group."

Bush Oct 2003: "It's a lot better than you probably think. Just ask people who have been there. They're stunned when they come back -- when they go to Iraq and the stories they tell are much different from the perceptions that you're being told life is like."

None of those had anything to do with overall difficulty of the Iraq effort. Most involve distinct missions or points in time and how the war was progressing. In fact, your quote by Bush has nothing to do with early promises on the war being "easy". He's simply explaining the current situation and that quote is true today.

If this is the best you can find, I think it easily proves my point that the argument that Bush said this war was going to be easy or wasn't upfront with the effort required is simply not a valid one. Nowhere do you have Bush or the adminstration stating democracy will happen in Iraq fairly quickly or that the overall mission will be short. Your quotes of basic status reports do not equal the administration saying this conflict will be easy.

If anyone had the impression when the US went to war in March of 2003 that this would be an "easy war" then they were not listening the president very closely.

Arlie

[Honolulu_Blue]

Bush has mentioned the difficulty and the long process of winning and rebuilding in Iraq numerous times since 2002. Yet, I can't find once instance where he even inferred it would be easy or just not difficult.

So, I will certainly give you the media on this, but saying that Bush did not properly alert the public to the difficulty in Iraq is simply not true. As I've posted above, he's mentioned the difficulty of the Iraq mission in nearly every speech.

I think you're sort of missing the point here. The article posted above isn't a critique about the Iraq war taking too long or that it should have been quick and easy, it's a critique of how no matter what goes on in Iraq (increased peace or increased violence) the Bush administration is twisting it to make it seem like things are exactly how they want them to be. No matter what's going on there it's win-win and our policies and strategies are working which is ridiculous given what has been said and what has been going on there.

You can find the article on slate.com, I think. A friend emailed it to me. There are links to all the speeches these quote were pulled from.

[Buzzbee]

:rolleyes:


Why, why, why, why, why, why, WHY do I click on these threads?!?!?

http://www.fof-ihof.com/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_banghead.gif

Each side is so entrenched in their attitudes that neither will give an inch. It becomes such a mind numbing excercise in "Oh yeah, well what about (insert list of political quotes/ads/actions/speeches/etc. here).

Instead of quoting who said what, why not simply state what you believe and why?

I'll start.

I believe that no President or administration will ever be perfect. 4 years is simply too long a time period for anyone or anything to do everything perfectly.

I believe that George Bush has been a capable President, and don't mind having him around for another four years. Yes, he has made some mistakes and there are several things that I believe he hasn't done well, but overall I feel he and his administration are more in line with my beliefs than what Kerry and the administration he would assemble would be.

I believe that associating the country's economy with the President is folly. The American economy, and increasingly the global economy, is so complex and has so many contributing factors that the President and his administration's economic policy can influence it to some degree, but don't necessarily dictate what will happen.

I believe that political campaigning has become so distasteful to me that I will eventually quit watching the news and will avoid any area where I feel political campaigning is possible. There is so much information and misinformation, so much partisanship, that it is becoming increasingly difficult to stomach the attacks.

I believe that Bush and his administration underestimated what it will take to stabilize Iraq and now have themselves in a bit of a catch 22. The idea that having a democratic government in Iraq as an example for the rest of the middle east is wonderful. However, I question whether it is possible. Thus the 22. Stay and try to fight it out and we're likely in for a long, drawn out, ugly situation with very little chance of success. Pull out and we admit defeat and strengthen those we were trying to defeat.

Those are just some of the things I believe. I don't necessarily have facts or quotes to back up those beliefs. Feel free to rip them to shreds if you like. Play counterpoint if you wish, as I am fairly open minded and could possible adjust those beliefs based on information I receive. But whatever you do, try to come out from your trenches and meet somewhere in the middle. Even if it is only to have a beer or a cup 'o tea and realize that your beliefs are different from someone elses, but that doesn't necessarily make them wrong and you right.

http://www.fof-ihof.com/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_angel.gif

[Flasch186]

Welcome to the instant gratification society. If it takes more than 10 minutes, it's a quagmire. All wars are supposed to be like Nerds vs. Noobs on Unreal Tournament with complete victories in 35 minutes.

honest question here.....

just wanted to know how long is ample amount of time to decide Iraq's success or failure, in your book?

[Buzzbee]

honest question here.....

just wanted to know how long is ample amount of time to decide Iraq's success or failure, in your book?

Just an opinion here, but that is a loaded question. The war in Iraq isn't going to be a total success or a total failure. To see it as a black and white win or lose, to see it as something with a begin date and an end date is a little short sighted in my opinion. You can mark milestones, but I don't think it is on a clock.

[Arles]

honest question here.....

just wanted to know how long is ample amount of time to decide Iraq's success or failure, in your book?
It took us 10 years to rebuild Germany, and that's with a population that had little problem with the American "occupation". I would expect it would take atleast half that for Iraq, if not more.

But, one thing I will say is that every day that goes by with Terrorists flocking to Iraq and not the US is something that can only be viewed as a positive from a domestic standpoint. If we continue on with no domestic terror attacks, you have to think that one main reason is the effort Al Quaeda is exerting in Iraq is hurting their ability to attack the US.

[Blackadar]

In politics, it's known as "doubletalk".

In the rest of the world, it's known as lying.

[Flasch186]

Just an opinion here, but that is a loaded question. The war in Iraq isn't going to be a total success or a total failure. To see it as a black and white win or lose, to see it as something with a begin date and an end date is a little short sighted in my opinion. You can mark milestones, but I don't think it is on a clock.

Ok then. How much time is ample amount of time to go by, before our president can stand in front of the Iraqi "White House", hang a banner behind him saying "mission accomplished", and be correct? In other words, if he did that today, we all would laugh but if he did that 5 years from now would you say that its a possibility then? 10 years? 20? I just want to know how much time is enough time to start making conclusions....cuz if I take my observational evidence and multiply it out exponentially, I dont see good things in the, at least near, future unless we change course.

Not pulling troops out necessarily but changing philosophy, etc.

So I ask, how long?

[Buzzbee]

Ok then. How much time is ample amount of time to go by, before our president can stand in front of the Iraqi "White House", hang a banner behind him saying "mission accomplished", and be correct? In other words, if he did that today, we all would laugh but if he did that 5 years from now would you say that its a possibility then? 10 years? 20? I just want to know how much time is enough time to start making conclusions....cuz if I take my observational evidence and multiply it out exponentially, I dont see good things in the, at least near, future unless we change course.

Not pulling troops out necessarily but changing philosophy, etc.

So I ask, how long?

How do you want me to answer an unanswerable question?

Should I say 1 year, 8 months, 7 days 16 hours 28 minutes and 42 seconds? Is that right?

This isn't like WWI or WWII. We can't define when the war is "over" by a signature on a treaty. How long? Depends on the individual. Ask several people and you will get several different answers. Who is to say who is "right" and who is "wrong".

Rather than ask Arles "how long", why not share your opinion about how long you think it should take, and why? Rather than try to point out the errors in others thinking, why don't you try explaining the reasoning behind your own. Perhaps then others might be more inclined to accept your points instead of becoming defensive at your attacks.

Perhaps quit trying to poke holes in other people's thinking and instead bolster their ideas about your own.

[Swaggs]

It took us 10 years to rebuild Germany, and that's with a population that had little problem with the American "occupation". I would expect it would take atleast half that for Iraq, if not more.

But, one thing I will say is that every day that goes by with Terrorists flocking to Iraq and not the US is something that can only be viewed as a positive from a domestic standpoint. If we continue on with no domestic terror attacks, you have to think that one main reason is the effort Al Quaeda is exerting in Iraq is hurting their ability to attack the US.

I think the rest of the world may disagree with your assertion that we, the United States, rebuilt Germany.

[CamEdwards]

I think the rest of the world may disagree with your assertion that we, the United States, rebuilt Germany.

and, as in so many other matters, the rest of the world can kiss my shiny white ass.

As to when we can judge the war in Iraq to be a success or a failure, I agree that there's no firm date. I'm certainly not going to tie it in to a complete absence of terrorist attacks in the country. I'd say the war can be reasonably viewed to be a success when the following conditions are met:

-national elections are held

-a government elected by the people of Iraq takes office.

-Iraqi security forces provide the vast majority of the security of the country.

I think all of those things are doable, and doable within five years.

[Swaggs]

My mistake for pointing out an effective example of nation-building, Cam.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

and, as in so many other matters, the rest of the world can kiss my shiny white ass.



It is this attitude that will forever prevent the "war on terror" from ever being won.

[Buzzbee]

and, as in so many other matters, the rest of the world can kiss my shiny white head.


Fixed it for ya.

[Flasch186]

and, as in so many other matters, the rest of the world can kiss my shiny white ass.

As to when we can judge the war in Iraq to be a success or a failure, I agree that there's no firm date. I'm certainly not going to tie it in to a complete absence of terrorist attacks in the country. I'd say the war can be reasonably viewed to be a success when the following conditions are met:

-national elections are held

-a government elected by the people of Iraq takes office.

-Iraqi security forces provide the vast majority of the security of the country.

I think all of those things are doable, and doable within five years.


ok 5 years, im fine with that. Im looking for the extreme so that there is no debate about it. If you think 20 years is substantial amount of time to pass judgment thats fine. Im not attacking I just want to know at what point (an extreme) when you can say "I think we did well in Iraq" or "I think Iraq was a failure" but this admin and EITHER party cant use the line "Be patient...this is a long term task" forever. That wouldnt be fair to Americans.

My points are so bolstered by unbelievable amounts of evidence on TV and in articles but the problem therein is people believe what they want to believe and discard anything that debunks their thoughts. Even when the president, in a moment of candor, admits what we all believe...That the plan to win the war, right now, makes that war "unwinnable". When people even in the admin's own circle say disparagging remarks it doesnt change anyone's minds...no one has the ability to see evidence and change their minds, their too stubborn, they have the inability to "flip flop".

So to get out of the circle above, Im looking for a time frame...its something empirical. A moment where we can both agree, is ample amount of time, to be able to step back and analyze ther "game plan" of today.

[Galaril]

Iraq will never be a Democracy.

[portnoise]

"Bush Rushed To War With No Plan To Win The Peace." A common sentiment expressed by the opposition to the war.

How can the President admit when things "aren't going as planned", when as the opposition asserts, there was "no plan"?

Sorry,can't have it both ways.

"Things aren't going as planned", ie. US Soldiers haven't been greeted with flower petals as liberators. Iraq, as a whole, hasn't accepted US intervention.

"There was no plan" to deal with the possibility of this happening.

[John Galt]

Strange that you seemed to miss that I didn't call you John Kerry.

You made a point that you can't blame the media when a President won't admit when things aren't going "as planned". I pointed out there are others who think that there was never any plan to begin with, including a Presidential candidate.

FWR argues:

John Galt says Bush never admits things aren't going as planned
John Kerry says Bush had no plan
_____________________________________________
John Galt can't have it both ways

Unless you are know defending John Kerry's position that Bush had no plan (something you would never do), your argument is nonsensical and a basic fallacy.

[John Galt]

I see nothing in here stating the entire process in Iraq would be quick and easy. Most of Rumsfeld's quotes involve the strategies with the major combat operations. He was on record on numerous other occasions talking about the entire Iraq conflict lasting years.

And, maybe I'm a little slow today, but could you please explain to me how any of these quotes imply the Iraq mission will be quick and easy:



None of those had anything to do with overall difficulty of the Iraq effort. Most involve distinct missions or points in time and how the war was progressing. In fact, your quote by Bush has nothing to do with early promises on the war being "easy". He's simply explaining the current situation and that quote is true today.

If this is the best you can find, I think it easily proves my point that the argument that Bush said this war was going to be easy or wasn't upfront with the effort required is simply not a valid one. Nowhere do you have Bush or the adminstration stating democracy will happen in Iraq fairly quickly or that the overall mission will be short. Your quotes of basic status reports do not equal the administration saying this conflict will be easy.

If anyone had the impression when the US went to war in March of 2003 that this would be an "easy war" then they were not listening the president very closely.

Arlie

I'm completely at a loss here. You say none of the quotes have "anything to do with the difficulty of the war effort."

If you say the war won't cost much, do you think that has to do with the difficulty of the war effort? Have you ever heard of a difficult war that was cheap?

If you say the US will be greeted as liberators, doesn't that mean the war will be easier? Can you name a difficult war where the invading force was treated as liberators?

If you say hostilities have diminished or that the country is largely under control, aren't you saying the war is largely over?

When you say that you don't think the conflict will possibly last 6 months, what do you think that means?

When you say that the war won't require that many troops, aren't you saying it won't be that difficult?

When you say that this Iraq war will be much easier than the first one, wouldn't you expect a less difficult war?

If you believe that the specific quotes I listed above don't describe the difficulty of the war (and instead believe Bush's vague references to difficulty and work being done meant this is what was advertised to the American public), then your mind stopped being open to reason and persuasion a long time ago.

[John Galt]

and, as in so many other matters, the rest of the world can kiss my shiny white ass.

As to when we can judge the war in Iraq to be a success or a failure, I agree that there's no firm date. I'm certainly not going to tie it in to a complete absence of terrorist attacks in the country. I'd say the war can be reasonably viewed to be a success when the following conditions are met:

-national elections are held

-a government elected by the people of Iraq takes office.

-Iraqi security forces provide the vast majority of the security of the country.

I think all of those things are doable, and doable within five years.

I agree with Cam completely that all 3 are doable within five years (although the latter is a bit sketchy depending on what is meant by "vast majority). However, I'm still convinced that when all 3 of those criteria are meant, the US will have lost a major battle in the war on terrorism. I have little doubt that the elected government in Iraq (if the elections are fair) will be a radicalized theocracy that will welcome al qaeda and other terrorist groups. There was a reason Osama had dreamed of regime change in Iraq (away from the secular Saddam) and the US will have delivered it to him.

[GrantDawg]

I'm going to repeat myself and then slam both candidates real quick....

Again, it is not that Americans don't have the patience for success, it is that the President is going around saying we are succeeding when even his own intelligence groups are saying we are not! That is dishonest, and will be burn out the will of the people quicker than admitting mistakes and showing changes that will help the situation.

It is much like the Kerry camp pretending they are not down in the polls. Instead of accepting things are not going well, they act like everything is fine and instead attack the pollsters. (At least they are changing things internally and trying to correct the problems).

When Republican congressman and senators who have always been supporters of the president and the war are now severely criticizing the adminstration on how they are running the reconstruction, I think that is a pretty good sign things are not going well. For the President to refuse to admit that and campaign saying the exact opposite is inexcusable.

[GrantDawg]

I agree with Cam completely that all 3 are doable within five years (although the latter is a bit sketchy depending on what is meant by "vast majority). However, I'm still convinced that when all 3 of those criteria are meant, the US will have lost a major battle in the war on terrorism. I have little doubt that the elected government in Iraq (if the elections are fair) will be a radicalized theocracy that will welcome al qaeda and other terrorist groups. There was a reason Osama had dreamed of regime change in Iraq (away from the secular Saddam) and the US will have delivered it to him.
That is one of my worries, too.

[CamEdwards]

considering the radicalized theocracy is now blowing up Iraqis with car bombs, I would like to think that voters would turn away from that type of government. I will however, admit to being an optimist.

[Honolulu_Blue]

"Bush Rushed To War With No Plan To Win The Peace." A common sentiment expressed by the opposition to the war.

How can the President admit when things "aren't going as planned", when as the opposition asserts, there was "no plan"?

Sorry,can't have it both ways.

Sorry, you can. You see, I think you're reading the statement "Bush Rushed To War With No Plan To Win The Peace" a little bit too literally. I reckon when they say "no plan" they really mean "no "real" plan" no "solid plan" no "plan of merit," no "plan of consequence" etc, etc.

It's like if you're talking about something you know very little about and say "I don't know anything." No, you do, you just know very little. Or if someone asks you "Got any money?" and you have five cents in your pocket and you answer "No, man. I aint got sh*t." You do, but just nothing of consequence. Or in a football game when a team is accused have having "no game plan" to stop X or Y. No, they probably did. It just seemed like they didn't because it sucked so bad.

[Bonegavel]

If you are doing the right thing (Ousting Hussein, cutting taxes) from the start, I think it is entirely feasible to see these 2 supposedly opposite things as win-win.

Cutting taxes is right at ANY time. He is right on both counts.

The war in Iraq is right. If things die down it is a good sign. If the terrorists ramp up the pressure it means they see that they need to do something or they are going to lose. That is a good sign.

A bit simplified, but the basic gist.

[GrantDawg]

Or in a football game when a team is accused have having "no game plan" to stop X or Y. No, they probably did. It just seemed like they didn't because it sucked so bad.
Best analogy, and well said. I hate the political parsing of statements to make them seem contradictory or say something they don't. Both sides do that crap way too much and gets in the way of actual discourse.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

FWR argues:

John Galt says Bush never admits things aren't going as planned
John Kerry says Bush had no plan
_____________________________________________
John Galt can't have it both ways

Unless you are know defending John Kerry's position that Bush had no plan (something you would never do), your argument is nonsensical and a basic fallacy.

Maybe you are just looking for too many nuances in my argument?

[John Galt]

Maybe you are just looking for too many nuances in my argument?

I give up.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

I reckon when they say "no plan" they really mean "no "real" plan" no "solid plan" no "plan of merit," no "plan of consequence" etc, etc.
They could mean that, but I don't know because it's not what they are saying. Saying "No Plan" is too generic. As you pointed out can mean a number of things. If the mean no "solid plan" or no "plan of merit" they they should say so. Be confident enough in your position to be specific enough.

[PsychoCop]

The war in Iraq was never right. The reasons for going to war via a preemptive strike were now proven to be all false. No weapons of mass destruction. No nuclear capabilites. No solid ties to Al Quaeda. Iraq was a great distraction from the hunt for Bin Laden though... kudos to Bush for taking everyone's mind off of that bugger and on to someone much more visible, and a much more open target. Good job on that one.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Best analogy, and well said. I hate the political parsing of statements to make them seem contradictory or say something they don't. Both sides do that crap way too much and gets in the way of actual discourse.

Amen to that, brother. Yes, you should be held responsible for any reasonable interpretation of what you say. The key word of that sentence is REASONABLE.

[Honolulu_Blue]

They could mean that, but I don't know because it's not what they are saying. Saying "No Plan" is too generic. As you pointed out can mean a number of things. If the mean no "solid plan" or no "plan of merit" they they should say so. Be confident enough in your position to be specific enough.

You appear to be quoting headlines, or common sentiment, or a slogan all of which are really vague concepts. Come on. Think. Do you really need something to be that specific? Are you not capable of reading between the lines or trying to use reason?

If you ask me "What color is the sky?" Should my response to you be something along the lines of "Well, sometimes its blue with white clouds dotting it sometimes, though sometimes there are no clouds at all, and the sun is sort of a light yellow, though sometimes it's more white and at dusk or dawn it can be a brilliant orange or red, though sometimes the sky is grey because clouds cover the entire sky, etc, etc, etc...."

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

You appear to be quoting headlines, or common sentiment, or a slogan all of which are really vague concepts. Come on. Think. Do you really need something to be that specific? Are you not capable of reading between the lines or trying to use reason?

I'm qouting what's coming out of their mouths. Are they not capable of being specific or saying what they mean? Heck, is any politician for that matter....

[Honolulu_Blue]

"Clearly, the administration's planning for the post-conflict phase in Iraq was inadequate." "Clearly, the administration's planning for the post-conflict phase in Iraq was inadequate."

I'm qouting what's coming out of their mouths. Are they not capable of being specific or saying what they mean? Heck, is any politician for that matter....

Ok, here are the highlights of the link posted in your original post. If you took the time to read it, then you would see that by "no plan" they meant an "inadequate","flawed", "poor,", etc. plan. Like I said before, it's a common use of the phrase. No one really takes it literally. Well, or so I thought.

GEORGE BUSH HAS NO PLAN TO WIN THE PEACE IN IRAQ

Here are the highlights:

The report blamed "setbacks in Iraq on a flawed and rushed war- planning process."

"The troops are paying the price for arrogant mismanagement and poor planning at the civilian policy level,"

"Clearly, the administration's planning for the post-conflict phase in Iraq was inadequate."

[portnoise]

About all this, at this point, a lot of people are seeing what they want to see and hearing what they want to hear. I'm know I'm in that camp to a certain extent too.

That said, if, for you, some perceived logical/linguistic inconsistency on Kerry's part--an inconsistency that is easily squared away to make logical sense, as HB has done--outweighs Bush's entry into a dangerous, unnecessary, expensive, off-target, unseemly and unsolvable situation, then there's not much point arguing.

...which is exactly what I'm doing, but like I said, we're in the same camp on that issue.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

"Clearly, the administration's planning for the post-conflict phase in Iraq was inadequate." "Clearly, the administration's planning for the post-conflict phase in Iraq was inadequate."

Ok, here are the highlights of the link posted in your original post. If you took the time to read it, then you would see that by "no plan" they meant an "inadequate","flawed", "poor,", etc. plan. Like I said before, it's a common use of the phrase. No one really takes it literally. Well, or so I thought.

GEORGE BUSH HAS NO PLAN TO WIN THE PEACE IN IRAQ

Here are the highlights:

The report blamed "setbacks in Iraq on a flawed and rushed war- planning process."

"The troops are paying the price for arrogant mismanagement and poor planning at the civilian policy level,"

"Clearly, the administration's planning for the post-conflict phase in Iraq was inadequate."

I read the report, thanks. I just don't think I should have to read a report when a politician says something, to just figure out what he means.

[Arles]

Regarding John and the administration's actions on communicating the effort in Iraq, I think the Bush Administration was very clear on the following when all of congress (and the US people) were deciding on whether to go to war in early 03:

1. The war in Iraq will be a difficult undertaking, taking years to complete.
2. We have no idea how much it will cost before it begins.
3. There is ample evidence that Saddam is someone that should be removed as part of the war on terror.

I don't think anyone disputed the above three items when Bush was making the case to go to war. So, to say Bush deceived Americans into agreeing to this war is the thing that bothers me. Now, it is fair to critique aspects of his plan, or the money that we ended up spending or state that the lives lost are not worth the effort. That is all fine. But to say that Bush misled Americans into somehow thinking this war would be cheap and easy is simply not true. You had people like Daschle, Gephart, Kerry and others agreeing with Bush prior to the war on the above three points.

When people voted to approve the war in congress or agreed to support it from the population they knew the war would probably take years and cost lives, that we didn't know how much it would cost and that Saddam had to be removed from power for the safety of the world. I think one of the things that hurt the administration was that because the major combat actions took such little time that people just assumed the rebuilding would be just as easy. And that, as history shows, is a very silly assumption to make.

[John Galt]

Regarding John and the administration's actions on communicating the effort in Iraq, I think the Bush Administration was very clear on the following when all of congress (and the US people) were deciding on whether to go to war in early 03:

1. The war in Iraq will be a difficult undertaking, taking years to complete.
2. We have no idea how much it will cost before it begins.
3. There is ample evidence that Saddam is someone that should be removed as part of the war on terror.


1. Find a quote where Bush says the war in Iraq (and not the war on terror) will take YEARS to complete. And how do you explain Rumsfeld and others saying they didn't think it would take 6 months?

2. Then why do you have members of the administration saying the costs will be "small" and that not many troops will be needed?

3. This is a whole separate issue and one that (although laughable IMO) doesn't belong in this thread.

And even as the war has gone on, the administration continues to paint a rosy picture of progress while throwing in platitudes about "difficulty." That isn't being honest.

[Arles]

1. Find a quote where Bush says the war in Iraq (and not the war on terror) will take YEARS to complete.
He never gave a timeframe because he didn't know. He said repeatedly that this was going to be a long and hard road in Iraq and didn't put a timetable on it.

Just curious, how long did you think the war in Iraq would take back in March of 2003?

And how do you explain Rumsfeld and others saying they didn't think it would take 6 months?

2. Then why do you have members of the administration saying the costs will be "small" and that not many troops will be needed?
Again, you are confusing the major military action with the entire mission in Iraq. The major combat activities did not take much more than 6 months or need all that many troops. Rumsfeld dealt with the fighting of the Saddam regime while it was in power, it's not his job to do the reconstruction. Therefore, it makes perfect sense for him to speak only from a standpoint of major combat operations - since that's what was his job. There were others in the administration in charge of rebuilding Iraq's infrustructure and helping establish a new government. And I don't think it's a stretch to say that role is not done by the secretary of defense.

3. This is a whole separate issue and one that (although laughable IMO) doesn't belong in this thread.
If it's laughable and Bush knowingly deceived people on this prior to March 2003, how can you vote for Kerry and Edwards? They had access to the same CIA info that the president did and were even stronger on Saddam's threat than Bush was. Of course, perhaps they (like Bush) were the victims of poor intelligence.

And even as the war has gone on, the administration continues to paint a rosy picture of progress while throwing in platitudes about "difficulty." That isn't being honest.
This is a completely separate issue from what Bush did prior to the war. The current administration is trying to combat the onslaught of bad news in the media by focusing on what is going well when Bush talks to the press. But to think that Bush is not taking this seriously or continually evaluating the plans in Iraq is just silly. He's already changed tactics in Fallujah and Najef, and they are talking about changing again in Fallujah this month.

Do you have any idea what it would do to the troops on the field if Bush came out and said "Yeah, the situation in Iraq sucks, people are dying and it just won't get any better." That would be extremely irresponsible for a sitting president to say that, even if he believed it (which I don't think Bush does). Not only would it kill the morale of the troops, but it would embolden the terrorists and insurgents in Iraq even more.

What you are asking Bush to do is simply irresponsible and I cannot believe you don't see that.

Arlie

[Bonegavel]

Not to interrupt the flow here, but Arlie, I am buying any game you produce from now until the end of time. :D

[John Galt]

He never gave a timeframe because he didn't know. He said repeatedly that this was going to be a long and hard road in Iraq and didn't put a timetable on it.

Just curious, how long did you think the war in Iraq would take back in March of 2003?


Again, you are confusing the major military action with the entire mission in Iraq. The major combat activities did not take much more than 6 months or need all that many troops. Rumsfeld dealt with the fighting of the Saddam regime while it was in power, it's not his job to do the reconstruction. Therefore, it makes perfect sense for him to speak only from a standpoint of major combat operations - since that's what was his job. There were others in the administration in charge of rebuilding Iraq's infrustructure and helping establish a new government. And I don't think it's a stretch to say that role is not done by the secretary of defense.


If it's laughable and Bush knowingly deceived people on this prior to March 2003, how can you vote for Kerry and Edwards? They had access to the same CIA info that the president did and were even stronger on Saddam's threat than Bush was. Of course, perhaps they (like Bush) were the victims of poor intelligence.


This is a completely separate issue from what Bush did prior to the war. The current administration is trying to combat the onslaught of bad news in the media by focusing on what is going well when Bush talks to the press. But to think that Bush is not taking this seriously or continually evaluating the plans in Iraq is just silly. He's already changed tactics in Fallujah and Najef, and they are talking about changing again in Fallujah this month.

Do you have any idea what it would do to the troops on the field if Bush came out and said "Yeah, the situation in Iraq sucks, people are dying and it just won't get any better." That would be extremely irresponsible for a sitting president to say that, even if he believed it (which I don't think Bush does). Not only would it kill the morale of the troops, but it would embolden the terrorists and insurgents in Iraq even more.

What you are asking Bush to do is simply irresponsible and I cannot believe you don't see that.

Arlie

You are truly beyond reason. You paint the world in binaries and broad strokes and take no time to assess what anyone else says.

You allege that Bush was "very clear" that the Iraq war would "tak[e] years to complete." When I ask for a quote to substantiate your claim, you say he never knew how long it would take. Then how was it "very clear" that it would "tak[e] years to complete?"

I quote Rumsfeld saying he would doubt the military operations would take 6 months. This is an extremely rosy picture of the war. I also quoted several administration officials saying reconstruction would pay for itself. If the administration had been "very clear" that they didn't know how much it would cost (as you allege), then they wouldn't have said those things.

Then, as per your usual argument technique, erect a strawman. You say the only two choices are to say, "everything is great" or "everything sucks." If you truly believe those are the only options, you have let your ideology destroy your imagination.

As for who I vote for - that is not really relevant. I, unlike you, believe in a world with more than two viewpoints. It seems the inability to recognize that fact is a common failure in your family (as illustrated in this thread).

[Arles]

You are truly beyond reason.
:cool:

You allege that Bush was "very clear" that the Iraq war would "tak[e] years to complete." When I ask for a quote to substantiate your claim, you say he never knew how long it would take. Then how was it "very clear" that it would "tak[e] years to complete?"
Again, he never said a timeframe because he didn't know. But I think it's a safe assumption that when he says a "long, hard road" he's not talking about a few months. I also think the fact that Saddam's regime was removed so quickly made many jump to unrealistic expectations on the rebuilding.

I quote Rumsfeld saying he would doubt the military operations would take 6 months.
The major combat action was done in May (3 months) and by August (6 months) over 70% of the provinces were under coalition control and peaceful. I'd say that was a darn good guess for the major military operations.

What you fail to realize is that Rumsfeld was NOT talking about the rebuilding of Iraq, simply the removal of Saddam from power. The rebuilding was handled by an entirely different group.

I also quoted several administration officials saying reconstruction would pay for itself. If the administration had been "very clear" that they didn't know how much it would cost (as you allege), then they wouldn't have said those things.
Bush was very clear in every press conference that it would be very difficult for anyone to put a price on the war until we see how it progressed. In fact, this fact bothered people like Daschle and Kennedy who were not happy with the idea of starting a war when they didn't know the cost. There were estimates by some economists in the $100 billion range, but no one stated for sure. Even Wolfowitz, whom you quoted, stated in that piece that he have really no way of knowing until the fighting is underway and the damage to the infrustructure is seen. But, he did say that he hoped the Iraqi oil revenues could help offset some of the cost - and they very well can and have already begun to pay for pieces of it.

Then, as per your usual argument technique, erect a strawman. You say the only two choices are to say, "everything is great" or "everything sucks." If you truly believe those are the only options, you have let your ideology destroy your imagination.
OK, how about this. Tell the exact words you would like Bush to say in public about the war. Until I see them, I am only guessing at what you want him to do.

As for who I vote for - that is not really relevant.
So, it's truley ABB (anybody but Bush) for you then. The candidate means nothing.

I, unlike you, believe in a world with more than two viewpoints. It seems the inability to recognize that fact is a common failure in your family (as illustrated in this thread).
I think there are more than two viewpoints on many aspects of society - things like social spending, taxes, school funding, retirement and others. But, on the issue of terrorism, I don't see there as being that many "levels of grey" as you appear to. If you feel it is virtuous to see those levels of grey on terror, so be it. I don't and have no problem admitting that.

Arlie

[Buddy Grant]

I strongly agree with the people in this thread (and elsewhere) that say they are against terrorism. It's a black and white argument, and though some joke about it, it's no laughing matter - you are either with us or against us after all, it couldn't be more simple than that. The "us" in that oft quoted phrase means you are against terrorism, while the "against us" portion would basically signify that you are in favor of Saddam style attacks on highly populated civilian area's, the calling card, if you will, of the modern international terrorist. This whole "shades of gray" thing seems to me to be a bit of Orwellian Newspeak for "flip flop". The choices are clear.

[Flasch186]

But Saddam was not a terrorist, by our new definition. He was a Diabolical Tyrannical Mass Murderer....BUT he was the head of state. The "new" definition of terrorist, as Ive come to understand how we're using it today doesnt include that. I have a problem with the "salesmanship" that Saddam had something to do with Al Qaeda and therefore we were fighting terorism in the war in Iraq. That is false. We were taking him out cuz he was a mass murderer who deserved to go and Im all for it....im dissappointed in the post war planning and execution but not that Saddam is gone.

[Honolulu_Blue]

:cool:

The major combat action was done in May (3 months) and by August (6 months) over 70% of the provinces were under coalition control and peaceful. I'd say that was a darn good guess for the major military operations.

Arlie

I think we're also having a problem of Semantics here. You actually think "major combat action" has been done since May 6, 2003? or August 6, 2003? Wow. From everything I have heard, seen, and read there is still some major combat action going on in Iraq. No go zones. Cities under siege. How many U.S. troops have been killed since May 6? August 6?

[Honolulu_Blue]

I strongly agree with the people in this thread (and elsewhere) that say they are against terrorism. It's a black and white argument, and though some joke about it, it's no laughing matter - you are either with us or against us after all, it couldn't be more simple than that. The "us" in that oft quoted phrase means you are against terrorism, while the "against us" portion would basically signify that you are in favor of Saddam style attacks on highly populated civilian area's, the calling card, if you will, of the modern international terrorist. This whole "shades of gray" thing seems to me to be a bit of Orwellian Newspeak for "flip flop". The choices are clear.

I am against terrorism. I don't think anyone in this thread or who has posted on this board (well, there are some who would like to turn the Middle Easte, and all of its highly populated civilian areas as well, into a sheet of glass, but that's another issue) is in favor of "Saddam style attacks on highly populated civilian areas" To insuinate that anyone here is terribly insulting, misguided, and foolish.

[KWhit]

Not to interrupt the flow here, but Arlie, I am buying any game you produce from now until the end of time. :D
Funny, but I was just thinking the exact opposite.

I wonder how many people would decide against buying a game from someone solely because the developer's political views were opposed to theirs.

[Arles]

Kwhit, we had this discussion about a while back and most people felt that as long as things were handled in a professional manner during discussions it would not impact whether or not they buy the game.

What do you think?

[Arles]

I think we're also having a problem of Semantics here. You actually think "major combat action" has been done since May 6, 2003? or August 6, 2003? Wow. From everything I have heard, seen, and read there is still some major combat action going on in Iraq. No go zones. Cities under siege. How many U.S. troops have been killed since May 6? August 6?
I consider major combat operations to be the mission to remove Saddam and his Baathists from power. Once that was complete, it became a different mission - one to combat terrorists and insurgents trying to prevent the new government from taking power. And, the fact that US has continued to stay on and help with this pseudo-police action while the new Iraqi government forms is probably the source for some of the confusion on this issue.

Arlie

[-Mojo Jojo-]

I strongly agree with the people in this thread (and elsewhere) that say they are against terrorism.

Dude, I totally agree with you. All the people in this thread who say they are for terrorism suck. Every one of them. They totally suck, and I'm not afraid to tell them. In fact, I'd like to call them out personally. Maybe you can help by pointing out who it was that said they were in favor of terrorism so that I can properly taunt them.

[KWhit]

Kwhit, we had this discussion about a while back and most people felt that as long as things were handled in a professional manner during discussions it would not impact whether or not they buy the game.

What do you think?
I think I missed that discussion. This topic comes up at an interesting time because this morning I heard a story on the radio that some restaurants are no longer using Heinz ketchup as a way to stick it to the Kerry's. It was ironic, though, because reportedly the Heinz corporation is (or has been in the past) very conservative and typically donates money to the Republican party.

To answer your question, though, I vote at the ballot box and I also vote with my wallet. I tend to avoid companies whose values I disagree with. However, I'm not very persistent about it and often give in if they sell a product or service I need/want.

:)

[Honolulu_Blue]

I consider major combat operations to be the mission to remove Saddam and his Baathists from power. Once that was complete, it became a different mission - one to combat terrorists and insurgents trying to prevent the new government from taking power. And, the fact that US has continued to stay on and help with this pseudo-police action while the new Iraqi government forms is probably the source for some of the confusion on this issue.

Arlie

Hmmm...

This sounds suspiciously to me like a "major combat operation." They even use the word "major." This and a lot of what's been going on in Iraq since Bush delcared the "end" to major combat actions has been much, much more than "pseudo-police action."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/01/iraq.main/index.html

U.S.: 109 insurgents killed in major offensive
Friday, October 1, 2004 Posted: 9:43 AM EDT (1343 GMT)

SAMARRA, Iraq (CNN) -- At least 109 insurgents and one American soldier were killed overnight in a major offensive launched by U.S. and Iraqi forces in the city of Samarra, U.S. military officials said Friday.

In the largest operation seen in Iraq's Sunni Triangle city in months, an estimated 3,000 U.S. troops moved into Samarra late Thursday. It was a response to what the United States called "repeated and unprovoked attacks by anti-Iraqi forces."

"This, they say, is the definitive battle for Samarra," CNN Correspondent Jane Arraf said amid heavy fire Friday morning as she traveled with the U.S. Army's 1st Infantry Division.

On Thursday, a senior Iraqi interim government official told CNN that U.S. and Iraqi forces were gearing up for a major offensive to put down the insurgent-dominated areas of the country.

It is not clear if the Samarra offensive was part of the plan, in which U.S. military forces will back up elements of Iraq's security forces to put pressure on insurgent hideouts and bases throughout the country.

In recent weeks, U.S. warplanes have hammered targets almost daily in Falluja, where the terror network of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is said to be based, and the Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City, a stronghold of support for Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

In Samarra, several hundred insurgents and 65 foreign fighters had managed to seize control of the city north of Baghdad.

On Friday, U.S. and Iraqi forces using tanks, backed up with air support, were going through the city sector by sector, clearing buildings and mosques, reaching the center early in the day, Arraf said.

Gunfire, explosions and the fire of rocket-propelled grenades could be heard, and power was cut to parts of the city.

U.S. forces lined the streets alongside the main Shiite mosque in Samarra, where a fire burned directly in front of the shrine.

The gold-domed mosque was not damaged in the fighting.

Many Samarra residents had fled the city in anticipation of the military offensive, residents told Arraf.

A statement released by the U.S. military said government and police buildings in Samarra had been secured by troops from the Iraqi National Guard, Iraqi Army and the 1st Infantry Division.

After the transfer to Iraq sovereignty in June, the U.S. military agreed to stop patrolling Samarra.

But as insurgent attacks continued, U.S. forces returned to patrols three weeks ago, after Iraqi and coalition forces restored Samarra's City Council to power.

[iceberg414]

Here is my problem. Osama bin laden is responsible for the September 11th attacks on America. He is not the only one, but he is the major figure responsible. Now we go to Afganastan to find him and bring him to justice as we are now (post 9-11) fighting a war on terrorism which is a global war. Fine, but the issue I have is that we're fighting the war on terror, then all of a sudden we are going to war with Iraq to bring Sadaam to justice. Fine, but why are we not fighting two wars? Because when you keep saying something as if it is true as in (not an exact quote) "we are fighting a war on terror we must bring Saddam to justice." This implies that Sadaam is a terrorist and by going to war in Iraq we some how are serving justice for 9-11 and fighting the war on terror. Sadaam WAS NOT A TERRORISTS! He was a ruthless dictator who was a threat to humanity, but he is NO Osama bin laden who is a terrorists. What ever happened to that guy? He is pretty important considering he started this whole war on terror/war on Iraq yet he isn't even our main focus? That is bullshit! That is deceitful. Bush used bin laden as an EXCUSE to go to war with Iraq. I think that the one that attacked us would be the most immediate threat, no? I just have a problem with Bush's "truths." War with Iraq being a fight against terrorists is a ssttrreettcchh...our allies? Who are they? We are winning the war in Iraq? Why are more soldiers dying more rapidly now? I would say because the opposition is getting stronger, NOT more desperate. Who is the opposition anyway? The PEOPLE OF IRAQ. If they want to be "free" so badly why is there so much civilian opposition? I feel like I was tricked and Iraq having free elections does NOT make me feel safer from terrorists. Catch bin laden, who has almost infinate amount of resources to conduct another terrorists attack. Something is fishy about the whole bin laden situation to me. Something "convienient" for Bush is going to happen to him right before the election and it will involve Saudia Arabia. just my thoughts and ramblings...feel free to insult me now :D

Edit: Wow this is a garbled mess, but the point is, I feel misled by most of Bush's decisions and I am fed up with the US being this vigilante, fuck the world, we don't give a shit about anyone but ourselves and by ourselves I mean upper middle class and large corporations, entity. We are powerful, sure, but we are also bullies and I don't like that. Bullies get retaliated against and I am itching for some diplomacy and better foreign relations.