Runsfeld Clears Things Up

[andyfox]

"The Iraqi security forces are out engaged in the fight. Some are in the lead, some are working with us in tandem, others are working with us where we have the lead, and that's perfectly understandable," Rumsfeld said on ABC's "This Week."

Yet, as recently as September, Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told senators that only one Iraqi army battalion out of ninety-six appeared capable of fighting without U.S. help. Perfectly understandable.

"We have to all have the willingness to have a free debate, but we also all have to have the willingness to understand what the effects of our words are," Rumsfeld said.

A lecture by Don Rumsfeld about the importance of what effect words have. Just when one thinks nothing this administration does or says could top what happened the day before, it yields this.

I guess stuff happens.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Rumsfeld said on ABC's "This Week."


[/ QUOTE ]

You should be watching football games instead of silly news programs.

Rumsfeld should garner a few 'Newspeak' awards I would think.



[ QUOTE ]
Just when one thinks nothing this administration does or says could top what happened the day before, it yields this.


[/ QUOTE ]


And today this: [ QUOTE ]

Bush Lowers Temperature of Iraq War Debate


By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent
2 hours ago



BEIJING - After fiercely defending his Iraq policy across Asia, President Bush abruptly toned down his attack on war critics Sunday and said there was nothing unpatriotic about opposing his strategy.



[/ QUOTE ]


How sweet it is.

-Zeno

[Myrtle]

If we're going to have anything that resembles a debate about the war in Iraq, let's start at the beginning......

Did we, or did we not, launch an unprovoked attack on a sovereign country?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
If we're going to have anything that resembles a debate about the war in Iraq, let's start at the beginning......

Did we, or did we not, launch an unprovoked attack on a sovereign country?


[/ QUOTE ]

Whether or not it was justifiable may be debated, but it was far from "unprovoked".

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If we're going to have anything that resembles a debate about the war in Iraq, let's start at the beginning......

Did we, or did we not, launch an unprovoked attack on a sovereign country?


[/ QUOTE ]

Whether or not it was justifiable may be debated, but it was far from "unprovoked".

[/ QUOTE ]

OK.......Let's get a bit more specific:

Let's define & discuss what the provocation(s) were.

I'm guessing that the word 'justifiable' will rear it's head somewhere in this discussion.........

[MMMMMM]

Quickly, to list a few provocations:

-firing daily on US planes in no-fly zones

-many years of defying/obstructing/delaying U.N. resolutions and inspections

-purportedly having attempted to have Bush #1 assassinated

-encouraging and helping fuel the cottage industry of Palestinian suicide-bombing with 50K payments to families of suicide-bombers

[ QUOTE ]
Did we, or did we not, launch an unprovoked attack on a sovereign dictator?

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[Zeno]

There have been too many debates about the 'Iraq War'. Most of them have involved pedantic drivel. The issue is irrelevant anyway.


[ QUOTE ]
Did we, or did we not, launch an unprovoked attack on a sovereign country?

[/ QUOTE ]

By God, I hope so. That's the best way to start a war.

Here are some good reasons for war:

1. Bold Conquest i.e., land grab.
2. Long-term economic and political gain.
3. Influence and dominance in trade routes.
4. Protection of important resources and/or to gain resources for self-interest and economic power.
5. Revenge/punishment for past acts.
6. Your God is more powerful than the other guys God - thus a war should be successful with all the attendant gains involved.
7. To free your 'country' or 'clan' from tyranny.
8. To spread your religion with all the attendant economic and political gain that comes with it.

Any one or combination of the above is a good reason(s) to engage in war. There are other reasons but this list touches on some of the most common and worthwhile ones for engaging in lustful battle.

This should answer any questions about the 'Iraq war'. So you see, there is no need for a ‘debate’.

It's time to move on to more important themes as - risk/reward analyses for a given war. Now that is something worth debating about.

-Zeno

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
There have been too many debates about the 'Iraq War'. Most of them have involved pedantic drivel. The issue is irrelevant anyway.


[ QUOTE ]
Did we, or did we not, launch an unprovoked attack on a sovereign country?

[/ QUOTE ]

By God, I hope so. That's the best way to start a war.

Here are some good reasons for war:

1. Bold Conquest i.e., land grab.
2. Long-term economic and political gain.
3. Influence and dominance in trade routes.
4. Protection of important resources and/or to gain resources for self-interest and economic power.
5. Revenge/punishment for past acts.
6. Your God is more powerful than the other guys God - thus a war should be successful with all the attendant gains involved.
7. To free your 'country' or 'clan' from tyranny.
8. To spread your religion with all the attendant economic and political gain that comes with it.

Any one or combination of the above is a good reason(s) to engage in war. There are other reasons but this list touches on some of the most common and worthwhile ones for engaging in lustful battle.

This should answer any questions about the 'Iraq war'. So you see, there is no need for a ‘debate’.

It's time to move on to more important themes as - risk/reward analyses for a given war. Now that is something worth debating about.

-Zeno

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see this issue as irrelevant at all. History will be the best judge of that.

You are entitled to your opinion as to whether or not is 'pedantic drivel'.

It sounds like the 'god' that you're invoking is Mars, eh?

I see your 'reasons' as either borderline or outright sociopathic and reject them outright.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
I see your 'reasons' as either borderline or outright sociopathic and reject them outright.

[/ QUOTE ]

Reject away. History, which you evoked in your post, provides conclusive proof that the reasons stated are very good reasons to go to war, and indeed have been the basis for many if not most wars. I sense some moralistic streak in you so I already know that we will simply disagree on this.

[ QUOTE ]
History will be the best judge of that.


[/ QUOTE ]

Depending of course on who writes the History. It is interesting that the 1848 war with Mexico, which the U.S. probably provoked, turned out to be a big gain for America. And most do not know or even care about the 'true history' of the how the war started.

[ QUOTE ]
It's time to move on to more important themes as - risk/reward analyses for a given war. Now that is something worth debating about.


[/ QUOTE ]

To beat the horse again - This is the real issue. The way the war was botched. The administration became too greed too fast. It they would have started the Iraq invasion during Bush's second term (he would have won easily because the Afghan war was more or less successful) then things may have gone more smoothly. Some more lead time to get ready, let the dust settle in the Afghan region and solidify your position and gains, would have been the wiser course to take. Then launch your propaganda campaign and get the throbbing masses all worked up for another go. Then your ratio of risk to reward would have been better, in my opinion.

But the most difficult risk/reward thing to calculate is the religion card. It’s the joker in the deck.

But enough of this, I already know you will disagree with all this so I suggest you put me on ignore and continue with your silly debate about the merits and justifications of the ‘Iraq War’.

-Zeno