10 Mar 10
Although turnout was down from 2005 levels, turnout was still higher than in, say, the United States (which is pretty sad for us, but I digress).
Turnout in Anbar province was 61%. This time, the Sunnis clearly turned out to vote. There was some violence of course, as the insurgents continue their last ditch effort in what seems like their lost cause to prevent the operation of a stable democracy in what was once Saddam Hussein's tyranny.
US troop levels have fallen below 100,000 and continue their inexorable march to zero.
Doomsday Chicken Littles like this guy
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-engelhardt10-2010mar10,0,2160491.story
assume that violence will pick up when US troop levels recede... except that troop levels have receded, without any increase in violence.
Granted, the entire premise of the Iraq war was based on faulty intelligence regarding WMDs. I understand all of that.
But is it possible, I mean possible, that one day, the removal of Saddam Hussein and his replacement by a power sharing democracy rife with secterian harmony to have the extremists shuddering in revulsion will be viewed as a great turning point in the history of the Middle East?
Just a thought.
10 Mar 10
2 edits
Originally posted by sh76I agree. Lost amidst all the Bush-bashing was the idea that maybe, just maybe, the dang thing will end up doing a great deal of good. There's a lot here for liberals to celebrate (elimination of tyrants and their repression and atrocities) and for conservatives to celebrate (increased security and fewer threats to the oil supply).
Although turnout was down from 2005 levels, turnout was still higher than in, say, the United States (which is pretty sad for us, but I digress).
Turnout in Anbar province was 61%. This time, the Sunnis clearly turned out to vote. There was some violence of course, as the insurgents continue their last ditch effort in what seems like their lost cause to prev n will be viewed as a great turning point in the history of the Middle East?
Just a thought.
The problem is that this would require liberals to give Bush credit for having the courage to go into Iraq and stay the course. And it would require conservatives to give credit to Obama for successfully stabilizing the situation enough to allow American troops to withdraw.
But we all know that both of these things are impossible.
10 Mar 10
Originally posted by Melanerpes"The ends justify the means"
I agree. Lost amidst all the Bush-bashing was the idea that maybe, just maybe, the dang thing will end up doing a great deal of good. There's a lot here for liberals to celebrate (elimination of tyrants and their repression and atrocities) and for conservatives to celebrate (increased security and fewer threats to the oil supply).
The problem is that t ...[text shortened]... llow American troops to withdraw.
But we all know that both of these things are impossible.
I always defended Bush and supported the war. However the fact that he lied to us to get there really, really pisses me off.
10 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76I would say that to deny this would be tantamount to peeling one's scabs and telling tall tales.
But is it possible, I mean possible, that one day, the removal of Saddam Hussein and his replacement by a power sharing democracy rife with secterian harmony to have the extremists shuddering in revulsion will be viewed as a great turning point in the history of the Middle East?.
10 Mar 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThere was no reason why Bush had to resort to lying. The truth was that Saddam was repeatedly preventing inspectors from checking on whether or not he was creating WMDs. We had every reason to suspect the worst. That by itself would have been sufficient justification for taking forceful action.
"The ends justify the means"
I always defended Bush and supported the war. However the fact that he lied to us to get there really, really pisses me off.
The main problem was Bush's failure to at least try to make a better case to the rest of the world so that the Iraq effort could have been a truly international operation instead of being mainly an "American cowboy thing".
10 Mar 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesBeing an "American cowboy thing" had it's benefits. It reminded the other side that we can get "loco" just like they can, and that we have better weapons, training and economic infrastructure to do it with.
There was no reason why Bush had to resort to lying. The truth was that Saddam was repeatedly preventing inspectors from checking on whether or not he was creating WMDs. We had every reason to suspect the worst. That by itself would have been sufficient justification for taking forceful action.
The main problem was Bush's failure to at least try to mak ...[text shortened]... have been a truly international operation instead of being mainly an "American cowboy thing".
Watch this Richard Pryor clip from 9:00 onwards. It's relevant. 🙂
10 Mar 10
Originally posted by sh76Well sure, a lot of things can be and a lot of things might have been.
Although turnout was down from 2005 levels, turnout was still higher than in, say, the United States (which is pretty sad for us, but I digress).
Turnout in Anbar province was 61%. This time, the Sunnis clearly turned out to vote. There was some violence of course, as the insurgents continue their last ditch effort in what seems like their lost cause to prev ...[text shortened]... n will be viewed as a great turning point in the history of the Middle East?
Just a thought.
10 Mar 10
Originally posted by sh76I don't think it's accurate to say WMD's were the entire premise. If you go back and listen to his speeches, Bush always framed the Iraq war as being just "one front in the larger war on terror", and "the great ideological struggle of our time". As such, I believe eliminating the threat of WMD's was Bush's method of selling the war, but that his larger objective was always to establish democracy in the Middle East as a way to combat the ideology of Islamic totalitarianism. In that vein, and despite all the bungling, the war has been more successful than we had any reason to believe it would, so far anyway.
Granted, the entire premise of the Iraq war was based on faulty intelligence regarding WMDs.
10 Mar 10
Originally posted by MelanerpesThere was a theroy some time back. It stated that Saddam wanted everyone to thing he still had weapons, because he feared Iran might take advantage of a weakened Iraq... So he played a gambit of sorts.
There was no reason why Bush had to resort to lying. The truth was that Saddam was repeatedly preventing inspectors from checking on whether or not he was creating WMDs. We had every reason to suspect the worst. That by itself would have been sufficient justification for taking forceful action.
The main problem was Bush's failure to at least try to mak ...[text shortened]... have been a truly international operation instead of being mainly an "American cowboy thing".
10 Mar 10
Originally posted by SleepyguyTrue. Maybe I'm projecting.
I don't think it's accurate to say WMD's were the entire premise. If you go back and listen to his speeches, Bush always framed the Iraq war as being just "one front in the larger war on terror", and "the great ideological struggle of our time". As such, I believe eliminating the threat of WMD's was Bush's method of selling the war, but that his l ...[text shortened]... war has been more successful than we had any reason to believe it would, so far anyway.
WMDs was the reason I accepted at the time as a compelling justification for war, so that's the only one I remember.
10 Mar 10
Originally posted by Sleepyguy"After all, this is a guy that [sic] tried to kill my dad at one time." - George W. Bush
I don't think it's accurate to say WMD's were the entire premise. If you go back and listen to his speeches, Bush always framed the Iraq war as being just "one front in the larger war on terror", and "the great ideological struggle of our time". As such, I believe eliminating the threat of WMD's was Bush's method of selling the war, but that his l ...[text shortened]... war has been more successful than we had any reason to believe it would, so far anyway.
10 Mar 10
Originally posted by sh76Here's wiki's summary:
True. Maybe I'm projecting.
WMDs was the reason I accepted at the time as a compelling justification for war, so that's the only one I remember.
The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:[2][3]
Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution
