Catastrophic Success

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

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

I give up.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

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]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

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]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

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]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

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."

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

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]

Originally Posted by 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."

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by John Galt

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.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Arles

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]

Originally Posted by John Galt

You are truly beyond reason.

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]

Originally Posted by Arles

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Bonegavel

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

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]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

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-]

Originally Posted by Buddy Grant

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by Arles

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/...ain/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

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.