What If We Actually Win In Iraq?

[Perd Hapley]

Or why couldn't they collaborate with others to do the same?

"Why couldn't the North Koreans?"
"Why couldn't the Chinese?"
"Why couldn't the Russians?"
"Why couldn't the Italians?"

Ah, OK.  Can I assume you've got no response to the rest of the post?  And this is all you can come up with?  Good.  We've reduced you to the typical anti-war illogic of taking each reason to invade Iraq, and considering it all by itself, as if it existed apart from all the other reasons. 

To clarify, yes, any nation could be involved in terrorist attacks against us.  But no one ever said that that alone was a good reason to invade a country. 

Next. 

[The Rabbi]

He certainly had the desire to do so.  He planned to assassinate an ex president.

I have "the desire" for a three-way with Heidi Klum and Mary-Louise Parker. In that we don't want to endlessly play with words, let's assume that 'desire' here denotes a realistic capability.

You raised the issue of desire in one of your posts.  Now you are saying desire counts for nothing?  A little consistency would be nice.
We do not know what Saddam's realistic capability was.  He had the capability of funding Palestinian suicide bombers.  And did so.  Why wouldn't he have the capability of funding terrorist attacks on American soil?
Will you argue that bin Laden did not have the capability to do so?  Bin Laden lacked the resources that Saddam had.  Ergo Saddam had desire and resources to stage terrorist attacks.  With WMD those resources were magnified to an unacceptable level, as the scenario was he would give a nuke or something else to a terrorist org to carry it out.

[The Rabbi]

Iraqi army amassed and awaiting orders to cross the border to attack us......

HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHA.............................


This is Israel's proxy war that we were dumb enough to get sucked into.
Feith, Wolfowitz and Perle worked behind the scenes manipulating half assed intel and hiring PR firms to turn public opinion against Iraq enough to where the American gullibles would be beating their war drums demanding blood.

It's not a dem or rep issue since there's no different between the two.

Read "A Pretext For War: 9/11, Iraq and the abuse of America's Intelligence Agencies" by James Bamford. If you want to skip the dry reading, start on page 250.

First off, you obviously didnt comprehend my post.
Anyway, let's cue up the Protocols and play that tune.

The Israelis working through their agents in State and Defense and their Amen Corner in Washington convinced the President and his other advisors, as well as a majority in COngress (and the American people) to engage in a war which was patently unjustified and served only Israel's defense needs.
Yea.  Right.  Tin foil hats anyone?

[roo_ster]

Removing their training grounds (Afghanistan & Iraq)

Remarkably dishonest to conflate the two.

Uh, no.  Both were terrorist training grounds.  Terrorist training camps were found in both.  Both were also known beforehand to operate these facilities.  The USA might suck rocks at humint these days, but we do have decent satellites.

Before accusing others of dishonesty, be sure to dispel your own ignorance.  Saves you from having to be an adult and admitting you were wrong or using the "octopus method" of venting ink from your nether regions and desperately back-swimming to waters warmer to your position.

[roo_ster]

History being an indicator of the future.  The guerillas always win. 

I would suggest reading more in depth and breath on the topic of military history, as your statement has the defect of being incorrect.

[The Rabbi]

Removing their training grounds (Afghanistan & Iraq)

Remarkably dishonest to conflate the two.

Uh, no.  Both were terrorist training grounds.  Terrorist training camps were found in both.  Both were also known beforehand to operate these facilities.  The USA might suck rocks at humint these days, but we do have decent satellites.

Before accusing others of dishonesty, be sure to dispel your own ignorance.  Saves you from having to be an adult and admitting you were wrong or using the "octopus method" of venting ink from your nether regions and desperately back-swimming to waters warmer to your position.

I predict we will see the latter approach.

[Bogie]

Face it - if Gore had been in office, and had actually had the stones to respond with force, the democrats would be supporting actions in Iraq, and the Republicans would be against it.
 
SAD when the leaders of the country are looking for short-term political gains instead of long-term strategies to ensure the country's security and well-being.
 

[roo_ster]

Bogie:

IIRC, most Republicans were against Clinton's adventurism in the Balkans.  Yet both the Republican leadership and the vast majority of Republicans drank a nice, warm glass of STFU and supported our boys & girls once the decision was made and they were committed.  How long have our troops been committed in the Balkans*?  What is "victory," there?  What is our exit strategy?  How many accusations of abuse by our folks have the Republicans helped to promote and treat as a political football?

* After Clinton said they'd be out in ONE year.  GWB never said it would be that easy in the ME.

[wooderson]

More argument by insinuation. You have no factual argument that Saddam DID NOT PLAY a role in attacks on American soil, or THAT HE DID NOT HAVE the desire and capability to do so in 2003.

Well, we know that he didn't have the desire and capability to do so because in the 12 intervening years, he never carried out any such attacks and was in worse shape by 2003 than in 1995. He had no WMD program, no legitimate military might, constant fear of losing his grip on the country and financial difficulties.

As to the first line... proving a negative is impossible. That's why rational people discuss what is and can be proven.

I don't know what's more disturbing: that you believe policy arguments don't need a factual, provable grounding, or that you're the last person in America who genuinely believes that Saddam was behind 9/11. If I treat your fictions about how Saddam MIGHT have been behind 9/11, or MIGHT have attacked America (note, your MIGHTs were FACTs to start with - if not for invading Iraq, we WOULD have had another attack) as legitimate points, I might as well also listen to the people claiming Israel was behind it, or George Bush - or aliens, for Christ's sake.
 

And he sure was pretty free and easy with using weapons of mass destruction on both his own people and his neighbors..

Weapons of mass destruction that he no longer had, right?

Now, when did he use these WMDs "on his own people" and "on his neighbors." Dates, please. I think they'll be... telling.

[wooderson]

Can I assume you've got no response to the rest of the post?

Don't mistake 'can't respond' with 'nothing worth responding to.' Your argument devolved into the standard solipsism of "well, he coulda!" You're right, he coulda done all kinds of things. And Martians coulda been behind 9/11. Should we treat the latter as a reasonable point of discussion?

[wooderson]

Uh, no.  Both were terrorist training grounds.  Terrorist training camps were found in both.  Both were also known beforehand to operate these facilities.  The USA might suck rocks at humint these days, but we do have decent satellites.

Covered, repeatedly. Saddam's 'terrorist' connections (including these vaunted training grounds cannot be shown to have ever been involved in attacks on American soil - you know, like that wacky 9/11 thing that started the War on Terra.

It remains dishonest to conflate all terrorism with terrorism that poses a threat to our security. Or, I'll give the benefit of the doubt and say it's either dishonest or ignorant. Y'all can choose.

[The Rabbi]

Wow, I dont know whether your howlers of logic are more impressive or your poor grasp of the facts.
Saddam had a WMD program.  That was known both before and after the invasion.  He had plans to continue it once sanctions were lifted.  THere is no debate on this.
Again, it is a straw man to claim that he was not behind 9/11.  No one (except you) ever said he was.  What we do say is that he actively promoted terrorism for 30 years and had the means and desire to continue that and augment it with the WMD he was planning to develop (see above).

More argument by insinuation. You have no factual argument that Saddam DID NOT PLAY a role in attacks on American soil, or THAT HE DID NOT HAVE the desire and capability to do so in 2003.

Well, we know that he didn't have the desire and capability to do so because in the 12 intervening years, he never carried out any such attacks and was in worse shape by 2003 than in 1995. He had no WMD program, no legitimate military might, constant fear of losing his grip on the country and financial difficulties.

As to the first line... proving a negative is impossible. That's why rational people discuss what is and can be proven.

I don't know what's more disturbing: that you believe policy arguments don't need a factual, provable grounding, or that you're the last person in America who genuinely believes that Saddam was behind 9/11. If I treat your fictions about how Saddam MIGHT have been behind 9/11, or MIGHT have attacked America (note, your MIGHTs were FACTs to start with - if not for invading Iraq, we WOULD have had another attack) as legitimate points, I might as well also listen to the people claiming Israel was behind it, or George Bush - or aliens, for Christ's sake.
 

And he sure was pretty free and easy with using weapons of mass destruction on both his own people and his neighbors..

Weapons of mass destruction that he no longer had, right?

Now, when did he use these WMDs "on his own people" and "on his neighbors." Dates, please. I think they'll be... telling.

[wooderson]

Saddam had a WMD program.

I have a 'sleep with supermodels program.'
Again, "Saddam coulda" is not relevant - "Saddam posed a legitimate threat to security" is. And what you can't argue - and what you dance around, is the latter.

He had plans to continue it once sanctions were lifted.  THere is no debate on this.

When were these sanctions going to be lifted, again? Had they been in 2003?

Again, it is a straw man to claim that he was not behind 9/11.  No one (except you) ever said he was.

Bogie and others certainly seems to believe he was involved, and that barring 'regime change' we would have 'most certainly' had another 9/11.

You seem to have missed that - the genesis of this entire string.

What we do say is that he actively promoted terrorism for 30 years

You left out the qualifiers again. Naughty naughty.

[jnojr]

It seems an article of faith, even among conservatives, that the Iraq War is lost, it is just a matter of time. Even if it isn't lost on the battlefield, it will be lost domestically.
But what if that's wrong?
What if the surge strategy actually works and the country is stabilized?

That would be fantastic.

But it just isn't very likely.  Iraq was only "stable" under the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, just as every other Middle Eastern Islamic nation is "stable" under strong, authoritarian governments.  There is no sign that Western-style democracy can, or has ever, worked over there.  Hell, look at what a train wreck it is for us... the US was never supposed to be a majority-rules democracy.  Now that it is, we get more and more Socialism.  And we want to visit the same thing upon the Iraqis?

I do not believe we've "lost" in Iraq.  We won, three years ago.  But there is no further victory for us.  We are never going to "stabilize' Iraq.  There is no sign that what we're supposedly doing is working.  The puppet government we're propping up will collapse within a week of the withdrawl of our soldiers and money, and there is absolutely no sign that that is ever not going to be the case.

We should give the current Iraqi government a timeline for our withdrawl, and tell them what they need to have accomplished at each stage of that timeline.  No, not "when you accomplish X, we'll do Y"... "You had good and goddamned better have accomplished X on this date, because we're doing Y, and you are the ones who'll have your heads on display in the public square if you screw this up"

An Iraq that collapses into civil war, foreign incursions, proxy warfar between Shi'a and Sunni, etc. would be really unfortunate, but it just isn't our responsibility.  We've given Iraq almost 4000 American lives and nearly $500 billion.  What more do we owe them?

[The Rabbi]

Saddam had a WMD program.

I have a 'sleep with supermodels program.'
Again, "Saddam coulda" is not relevant - "Saddam posed a legitimate threat to security" is. And what you can't argue - and what you dance around, is the latter.

He had plans to continue it once sanctions were lifted.  THere is no debate on this.

When were these sanctions going to be lifted, again? Had they been in 2003?

Again, it is a straw man to claim that he was not behind 9/11.  No one (except you) ever said he was.

Bogie and others certainly seems to believe he was involved, and that barring 'regime change' we would have 'most certainly' had another 9/11.

You seem to have missed that - the genesis of this entire string.

What we do say is that he actively promoted terrorism for 30 years

You left out the qualifiers again. Naughty naughty.

Good.  So you admit that Saddam had the willingness to carry out an attack.  You admit he had the means to do so.  The only thing he didnt have was the opportunity.  And it would have been foolhardy and irresponsible in the extreme to allow him time to get that opportunity.
Or do you think he was lacking any of these things?
Mere assertion is not argumentation, and you have been shown wrong on every post you've made.
And if you think Bogie believes Saddam was behind 9/11 then your reading comprehension skills are poor because he says no such thing.

[Perd Hapley]

Can I assume you've got no response to the rest of the post?

Don't mistake 'can't respond' with 'nothing worth responding to.' Your argument devolved into the standard solipsism of "well, he coulda!" You're right, he coulda done all kinds of things.

You took one comment from me, and treated it as if it was my entire and only argument for the Iraq war.  This happens a lot with your side.  Or perhaps you didn't read the following, from the post that you responded to? 

To clarify, yes, any nation could be involved in terrorist attacks against us.  But no one ever said that that alone was a good reason to invade a country.

I have not even begun to argue for the Iraq war.  (And you might want to look up "solipsism.")

But I wonder if you could help me with something.  Can you quote anyone in this thread saying that Saddam was involved in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil? 

Also, you seem to believe that a nation must attack us before we attack them.  Why? 

[Bogie]

Hussein didn't attack us. He had a personal alibi. He never went near the World Trade Centers.
 
Okay?
 
However, in all likelihood, he paid for someone to do so.
 
Does this mean that liberals now support murder for hire, as long as the folks being hired are discreet and deniable?
 

[RevDisk]

You also have political difficulties.
A Kurdistan is the last thing Turkey, an important ally in the region, wants.  A divided and weak Iraq would be inviting to Iran, possibly leading to an annexation.
It isn't that the division plan doesn't have merit, I think it does.  But it is a lot harder than snapping fingers.

Best if I disclose something first.  I'm biased towards the Kurds, as I spent time with them.  Lemme put it this way, I have a huge Kurdish silk rug in my closet.  They don't hand out the things like candy, yanno?  I respect them because they've been fighting since 846 for freedom.  They will not give up their quest for independence.  Amusingly, Salah al-Dīn Yusuf ibn Ayyub (Saladin) was an Iraqi Kurd.  He'd probably be proud of the fact that the modern Iraqi Kurds are getting their once enemy (the US) to build them shiney new infrastructure, kill their current enemies (Iraqi Sunni and Shiites) and give their enemies a unifying opponent to focus on so they can have time to build up their forces.

There's 11 to 15 million Kurds in Turkey.  Conservatively, one in seven Turks are Kurds.  Yea, Turkish Kurdistan would get nasty.  It'd be the last section of Greater Kurdistan to be integrated, if ever.  Iran I think would be open to the possibility of a fully autonomous Iranian Kurdistan.  I could see them swapping Iranian Kurdistan for support in annexation of Iraqi *expletive deleted*it population. 

Iraqi Kurdistan already exists.  We don't quite officially recognize it, but we don't have much choice either.  We don't have the manpower to properly suppress the Kurds.  PR wise, a large part of our justification for occupation of Iraq was Saddam's genocide against the Kurds.  If we crushed the Kurds for trying to be free, it'd be a hard sell.  We alternate helping the Kurds and screwing them over.  Granted, we usually screw them over by standing back and looking the other way as some other country pounds them flat.  They are starting oil production independent of federal control in Baghdad.  The Iraqi military is not suicidal enough to try to prevent this.  With oil comes money.  Money buys power.

I happen to agree basically completely with Phantom Warrior.  I spent significant time in the former Yugoslavia.  I agree that Balkanizing Iraq is our best chance.  Dicey, risky and expensive.  But far better odds than our current strategy.  Give the Kurds their independence and the majority of their own oil revenue to keep them happy.  Build a DMZ between the Sunni and Shiites.  Forcibly segregrate them.  Somehow work out an oil revenue sharing program.  Enforce it at gunpoint. 

[RevDisk]

Hussein didn't attack us. He had a personal alibi. He never went near the World Trade Centers.
 
Okay?
 
However, in all likelihood, he paid for someone to do so.
 
Does this mean that liberals now support murder for hire, as long as the folks being hired are discreet and deniable?

Uh, even Bush admitted that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

"First, just if I might correct a misperception, I dont think we ever said  at least I know I didnt say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein."  - President Bush, March 20, 2006 12:05 CT, FOX News

"No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th," - President Bush, September 17, 2003
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/18/national/18BUSH.html?ex=1189310400&en=441fddd241c04883&ei=5070


You are aware that Saddam was a secular kind of dictator?  Saddam and bin Laden hated each other.  Both would have gladly killed the other if they could. 

[stevelyn]

Iraqi army amassed and awaiting orders to cross the border to attack us......

HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHA.............................


This is Israel's proxy war that we were dumb enough to get sucked into.
Feith, Wolfowitz and Perle worked behind the scenes manipulating half assed intel and hiring PR firms to turn public opinion against Iraq enough to where the American gullibles would be beating their war drums demanding blood.

It's not a dem or rep issue since there's no different between the two.

Read "A Pretext For War: 9/11, Iraq and the abuse of America's Intelligence Agencies" by James Bamford. If you want to skip the dry reading, start on page 250.

First off, you obviously didnt comprehend my post.
Anyway, let's cue up the Protocols and play that tune.

The Israelis working through their agents in State and Defense and their Amen Corner in Washington convinced the President and his other advisors, as well as a majority in COngress (and the American people) to engage in a war which was patently unjustified and served only Israel's defense needs.
Yea.  Right.  Tin foil hats anyone?

I really didn't expect you to accept it. But the documentation and sources are there in the book for anyone that wishes to do the research on their own. You at least acknowledge the Amen Corner in Wash. DC.

[Perd Hapley]

The miscommunication here is in thinking that Bogie or Rabbi or I are basing our support for the Iraq war merely on the basis that Saddam might have assisted with terrorist attacks against the U.S.  I think Bogie is the only one to even suggest that he might have actually done so.  But we're not defending the Iraq war on such thin grounds.  We're only debating the nature of Saddam's connection to terrorism.  Bogie may be wrong, I suppose, but he is not claiming what some people think he is claiming.   

RevDisk, the Bush comments don't contradict Bogie.  Bush is only saying that we don't have evidence of any involvement, and that he never claimed Saddam was "directly involved."   Bogie seems to agree there is no evidence.  That's why he keeps talking about "plausible deniability."  And Bogie hasn't so far accused Saddam of direct involvement, or claimed that Bush did so. 

You are aware that Saddam was a secular kind of dictator?  Saddam and bin Laden hated each other.  Both would have gladly killed the other if they could. 

I understand that Saddam was no great hero of the faith.  I think Bogie understands that, as well.  And we all know that bin Laden was opposed to secular regimes such as Saddam's.  But do you think he was so principled as to turn away assistance from Iraq?  Why do you say that Saddam hated and would have killed bin Laden?  Was this true even after 11 Sept.? 

[Perd Hapley]

Hussein didn't attack us. He had a personal alibi. He never went near the World Trade Centers.
 
However, in all likelihood, he paid for someone to do so.

OK, now he's actually said what wooderson accused him of saying.  Congratulations, wood, you're a mind reader.   

[roo_ster]

If we crushed the Kurds for trying to be free, it'd be a hard sell.

Understatement of the month.

You are aware that Saddam was a secular kind of dictator?  Saddam and bin Laden hated each other.  Both would have gladly killed the other if they could.

We have seen too many instances of *expletive deleted*it militants, sunni militants, and secular militants aiding each other for tactical advantage.  What looked good on paper was not what was found in reality.  If those powers still exist in Iraq when the US leaves, I bet there will come a reckoning.

[Sergeant Bob]

You are aware that Saddam was a secular kind of dictator?  Saddam and bin Laden hated each other.  Both would have gladly killed the other if they could. 

I hear that all the time, from the same people who say Bin Laden, who hates the US, was created as a power by our support in Afghanistan. So, it appears he's not that choosy about where he gets his support from, as long as it helps him achieve his desired ends.

[wmenorr67]

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.