PNAC

[PITTM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Holy cow. Odd you say this because from a US casualty point of view the invasion might very well be one of the most successful in history. It is easily the most successful in history when you look at how long it took to invade."

Come on wacki- you know perfectly well that the support for the war and Bush's approval ratings are what will be the short term measuring stick for this operation.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, I am well aware of that. Popular opinion in 1943 Germany was that the Jews were bad for the country and deserved to be exiled or dealt with in a harsh maner. That doesn't make it right.

[/ QUOTE ]

okay, so its not "right" to judge the success of this war by bush's approval ratings, but that is what this administration is doing. beyond that, what criteria are "right" in judging this war? you seem to believe that since american casualities are low that this is a "successful" war. is it really just the casualities? i would say that a successful war happens when a country has goals for that war, accomplishes them and does minimal long term damage. in this case, going into the war we had 3 goals: get saddam out of power, get rid of iraqs "many thousands of WMDS!!"(which didnt exist anyways) and to further our war on terror. well, we got saddam out of power, confirmed that there were no WMDs and continue to fight our war on terror. so we accomplished 1 of those 3 stated goals, getting saddam out of power. Does that make this war successful? does the fact that only thousands have died to achieve this make the war successful? im still baffled at what is successful about any of this.

rj

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
im still baffled at what is successful about any of this.

[/ QUOTE ]

More like blinded by emotions. I feel dumb for taking the time to explain this as I have lots of work to do.

You are talking about the war on terror. You can argue with reasonable logic that Iraq was a bad move in that case and I'm not going to argue with you.

I am talking about the very specific act of invading Iraq, overthrowing Saddam, and planting the seed of democracy. That specific act is a huge success and one of the biggest in history of mankind. If you argue against that you are simply proving how out of touch of reality you really are. Just look at our long, bloody history, and the history of many other democracies for crying out loud.

I've already stated this. Now I think you are just trolling and this is a hijak. Goodday PITTM.

[MMMMMM]

I am sure that some on the Left want the U.S. to be less powerful and less dominant (Cyrus and Chris Alger, for example [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img])

A familiar refrain I have heard from the Left, is that the U.S. is too powerful and hegemonistic. I've encountered this view both within the U.S and from Europeans Lefties. For the U.S. to be less powerful it must become weaker (or relatively weaker). Sort of a basic inverse relationship, there;-)

I'm not trying to cast aspersions; just remarking on what I've noticed. And, once again, it certainly isn't true of all those on the Left. But I do think it is a fairly familiar refrain.

Also, I'm not saying that even those those Leftists who want the U.S. to be weaker or to be reined in, want the U.S. to do badly (although there are a smaller number who do want exactly that)--just to be less strong, less influential, less powerful, less of a force to be reckoned with.

Take that crackpot faux-Indian professor, Ward Churchill. He wants the U.S. to not only be less powerful, but to be attacked and humiliated "as often as necessary" (or something pretty much along those lines). Granted he is an extreme example but I offer him as Exhibit "A" just to demonstrate that there are indeed some Leftists who wish for things contrary to what you might expect (since you said you don't think anyone thinks that way).

Also, I'm not mentioning this to be divisive, but rather, it's part of my take on why so many on the Left oppose the PNAC and (puzzlingly to me) seem to view it as something evil. I could be wrong, but these are some of my guesses and some of my observations. Granted it definitely doesn't apply to everybody on the Left.

[PITTM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
im still baffled at what is successful about any of this.

[/ QUOTE ]

More like blinded by emotions. I feel dumb for taking the time to explain this as I have lots of work to do.

You are talking about the war on terror. You can argue with reasonable logic that Iraq was a bad move in that case and I'm not going to argue with you.

I am talking about the very specific act of invading Iraq, overthrowing Saddam, and planting the seed of democracy. That specific act is a huge success and one of the biggest in history of mankind. If you argue against that you are simply proving how out of touch of reality you really are. Just look at our long, bloody history, and the history of many other democracies for crying out loud.

I've already stated this. Now I think you are just trolling and this is a hijak. Goodday PITTM.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is by no means a hijack, i am discussing the article that was posted. my issue is with the fact that this "great rationale for going to war" was nonexistant before all of the other reasons were proven false. if we were going to go to war to fight for a free democratic iraq in the first place this war would be successful, but that was not the stated goal. but it was the goal we accomplished, so if we plug this in as our initial reason for going to war it all looks like a success. my point is that the only way to make this war "successful" was to completely change our goals and reasons for being in iraq after the war was well underway. this seems like a disasterous way to make decisions in the long run.

then to go on to say that i am "blinded by my emotions" in one paragraph and then to say that this war is "one of the biggest successes in the history of mankind" in the next make me think that you must not be thinking clearly. using terms like "planting the seed of democracy" are just cliche phrases used to make us feel like killing thousands of innocent people under a wrongful presumption might not have been so wrong. thanks for the mature reply though.

rj

[player24]

[ QUOTE ]
What about the WMD's? What about all of Bush's reasons? Are you people really so dumb you'll believe any Bullchit they put in front of you?

[/ QUOTE ]

The White House said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (citing US and foreign inteligence sources).

But, Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction (at least at the time of the invasion).

So, this proves that the White House must have lied about the existence of WMD.

Question: Could the White House simply have been wrong about WMD?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
my point is that the only way to make this war "successful" was to completely change our goals and reasons for being in iraq after the war was well underway.

[/ QUOTE ]

What makes you think you actually know what the administrations main reasons were? BTW, oil isn't what I am talking about and there have been several threads on this.

Still, you can't call the war in Iraq a failure. You just can't. You can call it a mistake, but not a failure. The fact that you are having so much difficulty realizing this basic concept is really making want to ignore you. I don't argue with trolls, the emotionally unstable, or idiots.

And yes, I think you are blinded by emotions.

[PITTM]

yes, that is a possibility. but the problem here is that the main justification for going to war was based on this flawed intelligence and this was the case because the administration didnt bother to verify these claims before they went to war. since this administration is big on "taking responsibility" with no reprecussions, i would imagine they dont want people knowing that they made a mistake and would rather just blame the CIA for all of this.

rj

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Could the White House simply have been wrong about WMD?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. It would make them extremely incompetent but that seems to be par for the course.

[PITTM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
my point is that the only way to make this war "successful" was to completely change our goals and reasons for being in iraq after the war was well underway.

[/ QUOTE ]

What makes you think you actually know what the administrations main reasons were? BTW, oil isn't what I am talking about and there have been several threads on this.

Still, you can't call the war in Iraq a failure. You just can't. You can call it a mistake, but not a failure. The fact that you are having so much difficulty realizing this basic concept is really making want to ignore you. I don't argue with trolls, the emotionally unstable, or idiots.

And yes, I think you are blinded by emotions.

[/ QUOTE ]

is that seriously your argument? i am a "trolling, emotionally unstable, idiot" because i dont agree with the completely opinion based statement you just made? i understand that you dont think its a failure. but you saying "you cant say its a failure" is completely opinionated and has absouletely no factual backing. but i guess im an idiot troll for not just agreeing with everything you say...calling me names and then saying im blinded by emotions makes for a pretty convincing argument...

and i know what the administrations stated goals for going to war were because they were "stated" many times in speeches leading up to the war. do you really disagree that those were the stated reasons?

rj

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
do you really disagree that those were the stated reasons?

[/ QUOTE ]

Stated reasons? no. Real reasons? very possible.

One last question.

Lets pretend the goal of the Iraq war was to remove Saddam from power and plant the seed of democracy as quickly as possible without a massive loss of life relative to normal war standards. Now, under those conditions, do you still think the Iraq war was a failure?

Yes or no only please.