I have to admit I couldn't make it through the entire tirade, treeman, but I've enjoyed all the responses, including yours. Huffington has never impressed me as anything but an attention seeker and Horowitz fills the same bill. People making notoriety for themselves so they can have notoriety. We can't know how things will play out... it's way too early. And the idea that Iran is suddenly becoming our buddies is beyond a stretch. I think the majority of the people there would like to be, but they don't hold the real power. Anyway, it's a silly premise. And I wish we had a different Administration. But that's another topic, and another topic we're beating to death. Go give a listen to the drum solo in Surfguy's thread. It's great!
The thing about this article like so many bashing those opposed, is that they and not the left tries to frame the lefts argument. He says that the anti-war group claimed we would be bogged down for long periods of time in an urban warfare situation. Actually that was a concern of the anti-war movement and not what they said would definitely happen. Though to some extent it is happening. How many crowds of protestors have we 'had' to open up on. The casualties that Horowitz is claiming didn't exist do exist, in the thousands as far as Iraqi citizens are concerned. The U.S. hasn't posted their claims and right now there is only the Iraqi numbers. Though pictures and hospital reports can testify some there is no reliable independent source to confirm just how many are dead. Speaking of openening fire on large crowds I'm curious how it works. I do believe that at least in most if not all cases the soldiers were fired upon. I saw several soldiers being interviewed about the official procedure. They said that if fired upon they need to positively identify the muzzleflashes and who fired them. If they don't do that they aren't supposed to shoot indiscriminantly into the crowd. Once they do identify them, they are supposed to fire two shots and see if their is return fire. If the soldiers werer following those procedures how do we end up with 15, 13, 11, people killed each time, with up to as many as 30 injured and needing treatment at hospitals. So in that sense some of the wories about urban warfare are turning out to valid, even though technically the war is won. The urban warfare still goes on. I also think that Huffington was dead on about the swiftness of our victory proving that we weren't under the dire threat the Bush administration lead us to believe. That's enough from me for now on the topic.
X-PAC: You are right that cmmentary and opinion prove nothing. I am not really trying to prove anything here, though. Just tossing something out for discussion... When I want to prove something I will post direct evidence for it. B-Bob: Woah - calm down. You're reading way too much into this... "Win" the debate? Hell, there is no "winning" this debate. No matter who posts what, who argues what, who gives evidence for what, this is the Neverending Story ala BBS. This will go on forever because everyone's minds are already made up. Still, it's fun to play... Of course we do not know the total effect this will have upon the future. We can speculate all we want (I am all for speculation, it was my post-grad major - Studies of the Future). We do, however, know how the past has played out, and since the war is effectively over at least some of what we have been arguing about for some months can be settled (or should be). Predictions were made on all sides, and no one got them all completely right. But some of us got alot more of it right than others. Those who got them wrong should fess up. As for what the future holds, we can speculate all we want. Nothing wrong with that. The only thing that irks me is A) the tendency of some posters to jump to conspiracy theories (it's all about oil, CIA behind 9/11, etc) and B) specifically, the idea that there are no WMD, never were, etc - it is way too premature for that. As for the future of Iraq, how it will affect the future of terrorism, how the region will be changed, impact on international structures and relations, etc - all that is still up for debate. All debate on those issues is healthy IMO as long as it stays away from mindless propagandizing and engaging in conspiracy theorizing. And as for the thread title - that is the title of the article, not mine. Forgive me for being unimaginative and engaging in sensationalizing. Or for just being lazy. Deckard: I wouldn't count on Iran asking us to sign a mutual defense treaty anytime soon. Realizing that the sh*tlist just lost a member, and that their number just moved up a slot, they are trying to act friendly. They are anything but friends. It will be interesting to see how that particular one plays out. Personally, I think that Bush will put off N. Korea until the beginning of his next term, and then deal with Iran (hopefully peacefully) towards the end of his next term... MHO.
Hold on there Hoss. (this reference is not derogatory, in fact, I liked Hoss Cartwright very much) Iraq had money, an active WMD program, and a relationship with Al Queda. You can't deny these facts. Do you seriously believe that a Al Queda terrorist attack using biological or chemicals weapons was not a possibility?
Three. Out of hundreds. And that has only been when we have been fired upon... By all accounts the casualties - even on the Iraqi side - have been extremely low. Our precision-guided weapons work - there were less than 300 Iraqi civilian deaths during the whole war - compared with over 3,000 during the 1991 war. Most of the Iraqi army fled and lived to go home to their families. The casualty estimates - liberal casualty estimates - range from 3,000 to 5,000 dead on their side. That is *extremely light* for a conflict of this size. You are correct that there is a procedure that they follow, and they do not just fire indiscriminately into crowds. They have to positively ID their targets before they can fire back. However, just think about what happens when a gunshot or two goes off in the midst of a large crowd - people start running. Everywhere. It is a very confusing situation that the soldiers have basically no control over. Now, they will check their fire, but when someone is actively shooting through a crowd at them - and they have a momentary clear shot they will take that shot. Problem is, of course, that people are still running all over the place... Attribute it to chaos. I am 100% certain that the soldiers would not take the shot unless they felt they could hit their target, and they felt that they had no choice. Shooting at troops from behind a crowd of civilians is urban warfare? Sounds like terrorism to me. This is a case of civil-disturbance turned-violent, not urban warfare. Urban warfare would result in whole city blocks being leveled... Which has not happened. And what do you think about Horowitz's counter to that argument - that the threat was not a military-to-military threat in the first place? Here: But who in the Bush Administration ever suggested, as Huffington claims, that Saddam’s war machine was a match for American military power? The answer is no one. This was never the threat. Huffington’s claim is so far-fetched, in fact, that other leftists have preferred the opposite tack, claiming the war was not a cakewalk and that that proves its supporters were wrong. For leftists, apparently any argument is appropriate if it makes their case. For the record, before the fighting started, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Myers accurately predicted the length of the war would be about three weeks. What Huffington’s comments show is that she has not the foggiest idea of what Saddam’s threat was and why we went to war. (This actually makes sense, when you think about it, since if she understood the reasons for the war she wouldn’t be against it.) Saddam’s challenge to the West was never the capability of his armed forces in a contest with the West. It was his status and capabilities as an international outlaw that made him an imminent threat. The nature of this threat was threefold: 1) his proven determination to build weapons of mass destruction; 2) his proven readiness to use terror against civilian populations (and therefore the possibility that he would use terror against us and others); and 3) his willingness to commit aggression against his Arab neighbors (as already demonstrated in Iran and Kuwait).
I thought there were 4. twice prior to this week, and twice this week. The figures I had seen were 1500 in Baghdad alone. I would guess the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. I understand being fired at and returning fire, and the chaos that would ensue. But I think the numbers of wounded and dead are much larger than I would think possible if the procedure was strictly followed. Either way being put into the position those soldiers are put into is horrible. That's another reason I think those against the war had it right. I think it depends on the response as to whether whole city blocks would be leveled. Sense it's in the context of war, I would call it urban warfare. I think this was what the original worry was. However, if it is terrorism(I actually think in this case it might be both.) Then another worry that the anti-war crowd has was an increase in terrorism. This would fall into that category. I think that if weapons inspectors were given the time to find things, and keep their eyes on what was going on, that the WMD which weren't able to be used in the war wouldnt' be able to be used with inspection teams all over the country even if it was to give to terrorist organizations. I also doubt that Saddam would give WMD to terrorist organizations. Any alliance with these organizations which are potential enemies would be pursued with more zeal only out of fear of an impending invasion. Any other connections IMO would not have resulted in the transfer of WMD.
1500 what? Soldiers? Civilians? Canaries? Red Cross has been having a hard time finding all of the Iraqis supposed casualties... But whatever the numbers, they have been low. That is the point, and no matter what estimate you use - they are all low - that point is indisputable. If the troops don't follow the procedures, then they get court-martialed. Career over, prison sentence. They wouldn't risk that unless they felt it was justified. I agree that it is a terrible situation, but I don't think it could be avoided. It is also getting blown out of proportion, IMO; for every Iraqi Shiite protesting our presence, there are a hundred who are thankful that we have liberated them, but that doesn't make the news. As for it validating the antiwar argument - that is ridiculous. I mean - a few protesters getting shot is worse than leaving Saddam in power and having on average 10,000 Iraqis disappear or get executed per year? Ridiculous. They are free now. Free to protest... No, the original worry was that we would have to fight the Republican Guard, Special Republican Guard, and Iraqi civilians en masse in the streets of Baghdad. That it would be another Stalingrad (that particular comparison/prediction was made repeatedly). That is what is meant by urban warfare, and that most certainly did not take place. What is going on now - some yahoo taking shots at soldiers from a crowd - is called a sniping assassination attempt. Falls under the definition of terrorism. Oh please. Quit trying to redefine the arguments here. The antiwar crowd predicted that there would be a general rise in terrorism directed at US targets - for example, more recruits for Al Qaeda. That has not happened. No one ever argued that we would not see strikes against troops in Iraq - that was not the issue. That was to be expected, and is not what the antiwar folks were arguing. I think you give the inspectors far more credit than they deserve. It's not like they had an omniscient eye seeing everything that was going on. All that would be needed for a large terrorist attack would be a suitcase full of a biotoxin, something that would easily go unnoticed. It would be one thing to transport 1,000lb SCUD warheads to their assembly and deployment sites, and quite another to hand over a suitcase to a clandestine agent. I don't see why, we already know he has. We know for a fact that Ansar Al Islam was working with Iraqi Intelligence on the use of cyanide in terror attacks. Do I need to remind you who Ansar was linked to? Oh, BS. Saddam hated our friggen guts. He's wanted revenge for 12 years - why else try to assassinate a *former* president? He was a vengeful man by all accounts. The evidence that has been showing up lately shows that he had a desire to hurt our interests and hit us in whatever way he could. Do you really put it past the man to use religious nuts to accomplish his goals?
Bullsh*t. Time will prove that this war was about oil and settling an old score rather than any threat to the US. Watch and learn as the truth comes out in the years to come.
oh..and here's a fact....IIIIII'mmmmm the Wiz!!! Yes, I'm the Wiz...I'm the Wiz (parading triumphantly)
Yeah, I'm just worried that, as you get older and settle down, have this kid with your sweetie, et cetera,... that you will somehow become conservative. But I did think the article was so full of hyperbolic absolutist nonsense that it wasn't worth posting. It got my panties in a wad for sure, that and the fact that I've completely fallen off the no-posting wagon. (I started getting the shakes pretty bad, had some students drive me nuts, and then it was right back to the liquor store of clutch city). I actually do agree with you about the extreme left view being oversimplified and tiresome. (I am more worried about unthinking nationalism, however). I do think Wolfie et al have more than oil on their minds, and I honestly believe some of those guys have extremely good intentions. (Some of my leftie friends have started to tease me because I am willing to view neocons without complete cynicism -- they say "Hey B, are you and wolfie gonna watch some action movies this weekend?" etc). They're misguided (the neocons), in my opinion; the Middle East isn't some unkempt backyard that we need to hit with a weed-wacker because a snake came out of it. It's just not that simple.
Where is the threat to the U.S. Was that not a reason for the war. And I know this guy isn't saying the fact that Saddam attacked Kuwait over 12 years ago was a reason.
Finally, I get my proper respect. I could do without the jester's garb, but the triumphant march demands pagentry.
That's not what this guy said though. He said everything the left said about the war is wrong. I had the most liberal score on that test out of people who've posted their results, and I was for the war. Was I wrong about the war?
