Please, you misread. Remember this statement addressed to you.


http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=214822

11 Republican Congressmen : George W. Bush :: Barry Goldwater : Richard Nixon?

I wasn't comparing Bush and Nixon, except that Goldwater was the catalyst that led to Nixon's resignation and now Republicans are on Bush's butt to do something about the war.



http://www.nytimes.com/books/01/04/01/spec...water-obit.html

The comparison is but to a small area. They won't bring about Bush resignation, but Republicans - not Democrats - may force Bush to change his Iraq policy.

OH – MY – GOD! Up really is down, and pigs do fly. Bush has backed down from his stubborn refusal to consider benchmarks for getting us out the Iraq quagmire. Absolutely astounding. I wonder if it had something to do with this:

or this:

But, since I'm a well-known Bush-hater, I have to say I'd like to see the action live up to the words; otherwise, it's just more empty rhetoric to kill time.

Or perhaps it has something to do with the fact that a majority of the Iraqi Parliament has now signed a petition requesting a vote on a bill asking for US forces to be withdrawn?

See this Alaternet Article. At the same time al-Malaki's major Sunni support in Parliament is threatening to pull out. See this Article.

Maybe there is a reason why those in nominal control want to take the summer off!

Up is definitely down in the way the major media continues to report news from Iraq.

Bush's concession might seem like progress but who is to say he wouldn't interpret the failure to meet benchmarks with the same inverting glasses. After all this is the administration that saw WMDs where there weren't any and al Qaeda connections where none existed.

I don't know what to say to this. After 4.5 years of arguing against the WMD scare, against al-Qaida ties, against the invasion, against Rumsfeld blowing off generals, against disbanding the army, against censoring al Sadr's stupid conspiracy newspaper, against holding off the Fallujah assault until after the 2004 election, against a continued military presence amidst growing sectarian violence—it's over? Just like that? Did Cheney ultimately cave in to defeatism and ask for a timeline?


I'm happy and confused, not ready to exhale. There's still Afghanistan. I suppose it could be the real deal. The May 10th PIPA poll reported:


And how are you, DTOM? You haven't responded since April 26. Are you being checked by 530-1?

Lesly, I think you are grasping at straws. Cheney isn't going to agree to any meaningful benchmarks. In fact the way the major media (including the article you cited) continue to frame the proposed oil law is deceitful. Only the division of Iraq's share of oil revenues is emphasized. Nothing is said about the Production Sharing Agreements that we have been insisting be maintained as part of the bill. Practically all Iraqis oppose these PSAs which would give Western oil companies a long term lock on a significant portion of Iraqi oil revenues. If Cheney and company really want a political setttlement, why don't they drop PSAs from the oil bill? See Iraqi Oil Law Analysis.

Iraq is “worth it” if the outcome is better than the prewar state of a country with WMD, run by a volatile dictator, ignoring UN mandates and with the capability to give/sell WMD to terrorists. History will do the calculation not any of us – and only after the outcome is clear.




Not the case. As posted sectarian violence is down. Violence overall is not down as AQ is not likely to allow us to pacify the country and bring the :sects” together without a fight.

Iran wants an Iraq that they can control by proxy and if they have to are the Shea population and encourage them to murder hundreds of thousands of Sunni to get there IMO they will.





They are significant and the have the second highest oil reserves in the world. The market is tight now and SA and others are reluctant to pump to their max capacity. Also remember the oil “market” is driven by expectations and if people “expect” chaos in the ME (if we precipitously pull out as the Dems would have us do) then the price will jump regardless of the supply. And you can be sure numerous countries like Venezuela, and Russia would love to see this happen. And the US will be the country that pays the most for this in higher gas prices and lower economic activity.

Since the US doesn't import the majority of thier oil from the ME- but rather Canada (thanks Vermillion, 'preciate it ) , Venezuala, Mexico and Russia, how do you expect the US to be paying the most? In fact, as far as fuel prices, America doesn't pay the highest, many would say it is artificially low prices even, that oil companies DON'T want the prices to go higher (OPEC has said as much in the past) that would encourage alternative energy means.

There might be a spike in price over "expectations"- but oil markets are still managed, long term, by investors that know what they hell they are doing- or they go broke.

The “market” is a world market and the folks who make the money are the oil producers SA, Russia, Venezuela, Canada, etc. The rest of us pay (we pay most because we are most dependant on foreign oil) – and uncertainty leads to higher prices regardless of supply and this is why there are so many investors in the market now. Money is made by betting on the future price of oil. Needless to say the big oil producers make more as the price rises and OPEC does not represent all the worlds oil.

And if you think the AQ folks don’t know what an interruption is oil would do to our economy think again.

“RIYADH (AFP) - Saudi Arabia said it had arrested 172 suspected Al-Qaeda militants on Friday, seizing weapons and cash, with some of them plotting airborne suicide attacks on oil facilities and army bases. “
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070427/ts_af...st_070427160217


If this had happened oil could have easily hit $150 - $200/barrel


In any case as we leave Iraq the state of that country will play a part in future oil “expectations” and its price. And as of this date there is no indication the morons who represent us in Congress are doing squat to get new nukes built etc.

Iraq had no WMD since the early 90s; I don't know why you keep bringing this up -- you can't give to terrorists what you don't have. While Saddam was giving money to families of suicide bombers in Israel, he did not support Jihadist organizations like Al Qaeda; I don't know why you keep bringing this up.

The whole history will judge us attitude is immoral. It is more than just immoral, actually -- it is malevolent. It is the fundamental argument behind all sorts of evil actions in human history, such as the Inquisition (what's 20 years of pain compared to an eternity of pain in hell?).

Anyway, the question I asked originally was: Do *you* believe that Iraq is "worth it" if it doesn't work out favorably. Specifically, if it is *worse* than it was while Saddam was in power.


By what measure are you judging that sectarian violence is down? The Iraq government is no longer counting casualties.


Agreed. This is what the US wants too. I imagine it's what the Saudis and Syrians want. The ME will continue to be a giant proxy battlefield.


The market doesn't have expectations on Iraqi oil: just look at the Iraqi oil futures market. The OPEC nations could pump more oil but there's an advantage to *not* doing this, specifically to keep prices at a "good" level. I agree that we would probably see a jump in oil prices if the US does precipitously pull out of Iraq, however the prices would quickly settle to their "natural" level. Prices are going up somewhat because of instability in the ME -- instability largely because the US invaded Iraq in the first place. Whether or not the US pulls out of Iraq, oil prices will continue to be volatile.

Also, what is this about $150-200/barrel? Can you please back up this claim?

I keep “bringing this up” for 2 reasons. 1. It was the justification for going in and was very valid at the time and 2. no one has ever come close to proving Saddam ever destroyed the tons of VX and thousands of litres of anthrax he admitted to making.




Immoral ??? – you mean more than Saddam? How can you be immoral for stopping one of the worst butchers in history?? Did he not slaughter nearly a million people, use WMD to kill thousands, etc. Haw can demanding that UN resolutions be fulfilled be immoral- and please don’t tell me it’s because the UN refused to do squat. THEY are immoral if any group is.



Read here
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/middlee...cle_1296516.php

Ted, could you answer this question?


I'm not going to engage in a moral relativism argument with you, Ted. And, yes, using the future to look back on what is happening now in order to justify what is happening now is immoral. It is wrong and it is dishonest.


This article is light on numbers. It just has Petraeus saying sectarian killings are down in Baghdad. He doesn't discuss how he came by those numbers; he doesn't discuss the rest of Iraq. And the article is about three weeks old.

Meanwhile, back in the real world...

BAGHDAD - U.S. and Iraqi troops searched house-to-house and combed fields with their bare hands Saturday after American troops and their Iraqi interpreter came under attack in the notorious "triangle of death" south of Baghdad, leaving five dead and three missing.

The military said the patrol was struck in a pre-dawn explosion near Mahmoudiya, about 20 miles south of Baghdad — an al-Qaida area where two U.S. soldiers were found massacred after disappearing at a checkpoint nearly a year ago.

A nearby unit heard the blast and the search was launched after communication could not be established with the patrol, the military said. Shortly after the blast, a drone observed two burning vehicles.

An emergency response unit arrived at the scene and found five members of the team dead and three others missing.

The attack occurred at 4:44 a.m. about 12 miles west of Mahmoudiya, a town of about 65,000 in a Sunni area dubbed the "triangle of death" for the frequent attacks against Shiite civilians and U.S. and Iraqi forces.

On June 16, 2006, two American soldiers — Pfc. Kristian Menchaca of Houston and Pfc. Thomas Tucker of Madras, Ore. — went missing after their Humvee was ambushed at a checkpoint near Youssifiyah, north of Mahmoudiya.

Their bodies were found days later, tied together with a bomb between one of the victim's legs. But the remains were not recovered until the next morning, after an Iraqi civilian warned that bombs had been planted in the area.

link

How exactly will we know when "the outcome is clear?" When we kill all of them or when they kill all of us? Is that the kind of benchmark that once reached we will know it's time to go home and leave this mess to the Iraqis?

Certainly there's no reason in asking the Decider-In-Chief what comes next. Before he comes up with a plan, he'd first have to get a clue.

Ted- where do you get the 200 dollars per barrel figure again? Do you plan on ever backing this up?

This argument has been debunked so many times, I don’t know - really know - why I’m bothering to counter it. Let’s go straight to the horse’s mouth on this. On the September 10, 2006 Dick Cheney, perhaps the foremost advocate of the war, appeared on Meet the Press. Look at Cheney’s answer to Russerts’ question about WMD.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14720480/page/4/

This was one of the many times the administration had moved the basket on the reasons for going to Iraq. The administration moved the basket so far and so often it would even shock Shaq. If one reason for going to war didn't work, then find another.


When they didn’t find WMD, they changed it to pursuing of WMD. Finding them would have been fact, the pursuing angle is conjecture – another excuse and perhaps another in a long list of where Dick Cheney went wrong.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14720480/page/5/

Not at all. But between being incredibly busy, insanely tired and having crappy internet service.......I don't have the time to post as I once did. Nor probably will I for the next year.
And sometimes I get fired up after a long sweaty day and want to vent and rant, but at the same time, it's often hard to interject into a debate that seems so abstract when you're actually living the subject of it. The odd claims of $200.00 barrels of oil, blowhards on both sides of the aisle in DC, and GEN Petreaus's arithmatic don't matter anymore in my reality, when I have to worry about the reliability of the IP's and NP's in my sector, or the latest 'fresh' block of concrete along the road.
Aside from taking me away from my family.......I hate this war for sapping my once vigorous will to debate.......

Oh please, Ted, there is always a Hitler du jour to satisfy some aspiration of the U.S. elite that requires military adventurism. Remember the dread Slobodan? Remember Manuel Noriega? They were all the worst since Stalin. Well, you know what, plenty of these butchers have been U.S. buddy boys, as Noriega was during most of his tenure, and as Saddam was all throughout the Iran-Iraq war. As Pinochet was. As Galtieri was. As Marcos was. As the Greek colonels were. As Karimov is today in Uzbekistan.

And as for butchery, what about 2,000,000 dead civilians in North Vietnam, and 2,000,000 in the South, due to our dubious attempts to section off "South" Vietnam as a U.S. client state? I'm not counting 650,000 dead NVA; that much responsibility borne by the other side. What about the bombing of Serbia, no butchery there? What about on the order of 100,000 dead Iraqis, some responsible parties estimate 600,000, since this particular little escapade began in Iraq? No blame there?

My answer is Yes unless we run out of Iraq and then of course the answer will be no since another dictator will take over or (worse)Iraq will become a client state of Ira. Too soon to tell yet.




So he is lying and you are right?. Give me a break please.




Quite the contrary as if it matters since all you Dem buddies said the same thing. And remember the ISG said even if Saddam had destroyed (illegally) the tons of missing WMD he would have been back in production as soon as sanctions ended. So what was your plan for Iraq 2002?




You mean the same reason(s) Bill C attacked Iraq I presume????




AND Bill Clinton went wrong, and the CIA went wrong and Hillary went wrong and Dodd went wrong and………..

I get it B0F Cheney, gets the blame even though 100 smart people said the same things.......


.


O please yourself sir. Noriega never killed nearly a million people and this was not the justification for the war in any case. And for “adventurism” – just look around – that same people screaming for us to run from Iraq wasn’t us to go to Darfur!!! How stupid id that?

I'm really, really confused now. Are you being coy? The question is simple. Do *you* believe that if Iraq doesn't work out favorably -- worse than when Saddam was in power -- that Iraq would be "worth it"? It's such a simple question; I don't see why you're having such trouble answering it.


Um...no. The article you referenced is out of date and has no numbers to back up the claim made by Petraeus. Petreaus could have been completely accurate and truthful but is impossible to assess the veracity of the claims being made. You know that whole "trust but verify" thing.

No Ted, it's a little more than blaming Cheney for getting it wrong. It's blaming him for continuing to get it wrong - time after time, after...

Remember, the Meet the Press segment I quoted was from September, 2006. That's pretty late in the game don't you think? It's like Cheney is fixated. Quick, someone get that baby bottle out of his mouth.

I tried to answer. The issue is it is too soon. We had Saddam – a nutcase with WMD who ignored the UN (who were doing squat in any case) and now we have a nasty war we may not win. If we lose we are back to where we started – esp. if Iran has control of much of Iraq. If we “win” we are better off without doubt.





So lets talk about it in Sept. when Petraus makes his report to Congress.





Want to define that??? Should we have just run from the country when we missed the WMD in 2005 or 06??? Is this what any rational person would have done???? What would havew happened if we did this??


Retired army general Barry McCaffrey “released a dire assessment of the situation in Iraq, based on a recent round of meetings there with Gen. David H. Petraeus and 16 other senior U.S. commanders.”

He wrote, among other things, that “the population is in despair” and that “life in many of the urban areas is now desperate.”
That being said, McCaffrey sees reason for hope. Seven reasons even
:
1st: The Maliki government has given the green light to prune out elements of the renegade Sadr organization in Baghdad…
2nd: The US and Iraqi Forces have now dramatically changed their operational scheme. More then 50+ Iraqi Police/Army and US Army Joint Security Stations (JSS) are now being emplaced across the city and extended into the suburbs…
3rd: The Iraqis have finally committed credible numbers of integrated Police and Army units to the battle of Baghdad…
4th: There is a real and growing ground swell of Sunni tribal opposition to the Al Qaeda-in-Iraq terror formations…
5th: The equipment and resources for the Iraqi Security Forces has increased dramatically…
6th: Reconciliation of the internal warring elements in Iraq will be how we eventually win the war in Iraq—-if it happens. There is a very sophisticated and carefully integrated approach by the Iraqi government and Coalition actors to defuse the armed violence from internal enemies and bring people into the political process…
7th: US Combat forces are simply superb…
In other words: the U.S. can still achieve its objectives. These objectives are: “a stable Iraq, at peace with its neighbors, not producing weapons of mass destruction, and fully committed to a law-based government…
Our central purpose is to allow the nation to re-establish governance based on some loose federal consensus among the three major ethnic-factional actors.”
http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/forei...affrey-on-iraq/

Saddam never killed "nearly a million people," Ted. Even the Iran-Iraq War only killed about 800,000, and that was war, you know, just like our war in Iraq. And I'm not screaming for us to go to Darfur, Ted, so don't change the subject.

In terms of grand strategy I'm not aware of any real plan from this administration other than PNAC. And we know what happened there. As for political games versus a belief in a start toward a real solution I expect it is a bit of both. This administration seems to have an endless capacity to delude itself.

The plans that have worked are basically of the simple tactical variety, ex. how to get from Kuwait to Baghdad and defeat any open military resistance along the way. That victory was pretty much a foregone conclusion. As far as securing the victory, there doesn't appear much the US can do or could do over the long term. I had a minor hope the first democratic election might be a unifying factor in Iraqi thinking but it appeared just the opposite happened. Voters lined up along sectarian lines and so it just exaserbated the sectarian differences. I haven't held out much hope for any positive outcome to our occupation since.

The surge as I understand it is Kagan's plan to secure much of Baghdad from sectarian violence using American forces and then progressively inserting more and more Iraqi troops, allowing Americans to be redeployed elsewhere and presumably repeating the process. The consequences as they come filtering back appear to be about what you would expect. The insurgents move away from the heavily secured areas and simply concentrate their resistance elsewhere. Kind of like cleaning your house by sweeping the dirt from room to room. Building walls appears to be part of this securing effort, but I don't presently hear a lot of good feedback coming from these "gated communities."

It would seem to me if the Iraqi troops were ready to step it up, they would have by now. Doing what amounts to the same old same old and then giving it a new label doesn't appear to me to offer much new hope.

I think it's time for us to begin an ordered withdrawal and in the process try to leave the place with the best prospects possible. Up until now we have been more problem than solution, from what I can see.

Only have two cents to throw in. A few pages of bickering back, Lesly brought up the stoning of a woman in the Kurdish area of Iraq. Then DTOM piped up in a page or two later on, a guy too busy, too tired for debate here even if he had any decent Internet connection. The military is cracking down on any Internet activity from the troops that might be used by the enemy. We're supposed to wait until September before anyone can say if the surge has worked or not. A handful of Republicans went to give President Bush a piece of their minds. The Iraqi parliament is on spring break (Cancun?), and the Iraqi people are leaving the country in droves.

Isn't leaving your country in droves abandoning it?

The Iraqis don't want this thing, the Republicans don't want this thing, most of the US public doesn't want this thing, and some of us never wanted it. But we are told again to wait and see, almost to get a grip, as the Bush administration works to figure this thing out, those brilliant masterminds of the whole thing.

*sigh*, 'K, September it is. Sure don't want gas to shoot up to ten bucks a gallon (heh, yeah) or those poor Iraqis abandoning their country in droves to end up in a blood bath, thus taking away their rights to stone women. Yep, by September all the Iraqis will have left, we can pull out, and then a little accident can happen to turn the wretched place into the shining piece of glass envisioned at the beginning.

*slap slap*, there. Done. No threat of WMD from a lump of glass.

The history can then be written about the brilliant Bush Doctrine, how it fooled all the terrorists to come to Iraq, and how the world was wiped clean of the vermin in one bold and sweeping nu-klur move. All the protesters go home and bake apple pies. The kids join JA and stop getting piercings. Republicans take back Congress and win the White House in 2008.

I take another pill and watch youtube.

No, September it won't be.

Ever since this war started, there's always been a 6 month benchmark that has never been met. This one will be no different because the Bush administration can always count on people like Ted to be like Charlie kicking the football while Lucy holds the ball.

There is no evidence this one will be any different. In September, they will mark "progress" and say the surge is working even though it won't, and with communications getting tightened further (no media coverage of bombings, limiting internet access to service-people, etc), there won't be an easy way for us to find out.

Bush will declare limited success, blame the democrats for not being able to enjoy complete success, and not change a thing.

The only thing that will change is releasing less of the truth. That's Bush's strategy for "victory".

One factor that apparently gives hope to Gen. Petraeus that the surge might work is the attention now that is being given to the tactics of an old counter insurgency guru named Galula, a French officer during the Algerian war of independence in the 1950s.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/...le.aip?id=10856

There is an old army saying that “proper, prior planning prevents [blank]-poor performance.” Given the experience of the humiliating defeat in Vietnam within living memory of both our military and civilian leadership, it is nothing short of astonishing that America should be involved in yet another limited war with no legitimate objective, without proper planning, and with no exit strategy other than to “stay the course” - the so-called “surge” merely continues this failed strategy.

In The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli maintained that a state that is easily won is not easily held because the enemy still remains everywhere about the occupier; whereas a state that is hard won is easily ruled as the enemy has been destroyed. Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz - the architects of the war in Iraq - both profess to be students of Machiavelli. Apparently, they didn’t learn their lessons well; and President Bush would have done well to have had better advisors.

Thanks for bringing this up, Nemo. I knew about this quote but forgot who wrote it. I think I'll add it to my signature.

I must disagree on this point. If we "lose", we will be responsible for a civil war that will likely result in the massacre of the Sunni population, the inability of the United States to work with Sunni countries (which is most of the Muslim world), a key opponent of Iran becoming its client state, spending trillions of dollars in the Iraqi desert, the deaths of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and proving to the world that the United States doesn't know how to manage a war. I should think that is a place much worse than from where we started.


One of my big problems with this war is that it was conceived for two purposes which call for two very different strategies. If the mission is to remove WMDs from Iraq, the solution is to conduct inspections at gunpoint, dismantle any facility discovered, and then leave the rest of Iraq intact. If the mission is to remove Saddam from Iraq, the solution is to wait for Iraqis to claim that Saddam came to power illegally, then give them the force of arms needed for them to enact their constitutional process. We did neither.

I agree that Cheney has no credibility, and if he did in fact manipulate the intelligence released to the Congress before the AUMF in Iraq, he should be punished. But to my mind, the real problem is that the war was designed around the notion that Iraq would magically heal itself after we removed Saddam from power.



In fairness, I think there is another element to the plan; getting people used to peace, and building stable and prosperous communities worth fighting for, before redeploying. The idea is that if non-combatants have a peaceful and orderly place to live, they will want to keep it, and will work with security forces to keep insurgents from coming in after the Americans redeploy. It is a common counter-insurgency strategy, and its only real drawback is that it takes a long time to produce good results. And if Rumsfeld had not been so eager to prove the broad applicability of his Rumsfeld Doctrine, we might have tried it in 2004, which would have put us in much better shape by now.

Now, this tactic will not help us against civil war, unless we are so successful in community-building as to hold some great leverage over one side or the other. It may be that nothing will prevent violence between the Sunnis and the Shi'ites. But for all I despise this war and what it has done to Iraq and the United States, I can at least acknowledge that Petraeus is doing a great job.

Not my quote. I beleive credit goes to Dingo.

So it does, my apologies. The post has been edited accordingly.

So, you're saying it's too soon for you to determine if it is "worth it" if the outcome is unfavorable, correct? If that's the case, then how come it isn't too soon to say Iraq is "worth it" if the outcome is favorable? Maybe, if you could explain that, then I'll better understand what you mean.


I don't believe it matters to you what Petraeus reports in September, Ted. If Dubya says "stay the course", then you will continue advocating that. If Dubya says something different, then you will change your position to conform to whatever Dubya advocates. You are a cheerleader (and I don't mean that disparagingly). This is the reason why some find it difficult to debate you on the facts, on actual evidence presented, on real data acquired. There appears to be no factual evidence presented where you would go: "Hmm, maybe, there's something to that." Instead, you advocate strictly along ideological lines -- specifically, whatever Dubya advocates.

Also, please don't think I'm calling you out here. It's just that I believe for a debate to be useful or interesting all parties must attempt to understand what the others have written and to acknowledge the logical and empirical evidence presented. Rather, it seems to me you want, desperately want, to maintain your position at all costs -- even to the point of disregarding valid points made or walking away from challenges to your arguments.

A favorable outcome puts a democratic Iraq in the ME as an ally of the US as opposed to a lunatic dictator with WMD defying the UN. How much more clear can it be?

If the outcome is unfavorable the question is how bad is it.





Far from a “cheerleader” I have said many times he went in too soon. After doing that though I have supported the war hoping for a favorable conclusion – which now is in doubt. I say wait to Sept.

On the other hand those who hate Bush have seen everything in shades of black. Saddam was a good guy with no WMD?? Ya right. The facts on Iraq and WMD, and ignored UN resolutions are clear. Your side would have done what? Inspect forever? What was the point at which you would have gone into Iraq to force compliance with the UN Resolutions?


The fact that the war has been run badly after the fall of Saddam does not make it the wrong thing to have done - does it.

If the outcome is *worse* than when Saddam was in power, then you would say....?



After we invaded, I supported the mission getting done. It appeared to be when we (1) captured Saddam and (2) found no WMD. A third mission was tacked on after the fact, that is, "democratizing" Iraq. I didn't support that with the number of troops we had. We needed 3x times the number of troops in order effectively police Iraq for however many years it would take for government and infrastructure to be rebuilt (maybe 5 years). In order to maintain a 400,000-500,000 troop strength for that time period we would have been forced to institute a draft. Given that none of that happened, this whole Iraq "adventure" is doomed, in my opinion.


I would have given the weapons inspectors the time they needed to complete their inspections, yes. Hans Blix said it would take another 3-6 month just before we invaded. However, he would have discovered there was no WMD and thus Dubya's opportunity to invade Iraq would have evaporated. It was a political calculation on Dubya's part.


This is one of those philosophical questions, right? Do intentions matter more than consequences? I'll let you wrestle with that one.

Not possible. Even if Iran acquires 1/3 of Iraq as a “client state” they are still 5 years from nuclear weapons. Iraq had WMD and would have had nukes by now if nothing was done.



I agree although I disagree on the “third mission” – even Clinton was for “regime change” and this implies another government – why not a democratic one? There is no way we could have just pulled out after missing the movement of the WMD out of the country.


And I agree after the stupid mistake of disbanding the Iraqi army we needed more men. All we can hope for now is a political solution that maintains some level of democracy.




I wouls have given them another year but IMO it was fruitless. All we were looking for could fit into a 3 car garage and we gave Iraq 4 years to hide it. The chance of Blix stumbling across it IMO was nearly zero. The last group had 7 years and merely found proof they were manufactured but the sought after stockpiles never were uncovered.

Just the fact that, after US urging for months, Blix decided he should look underground was shocking to me.

It's this type of "hear no evil, see no evil" rhetoric that makes me conclude you're a cheerleader. If there is no circumstance where things could work out *worse*, then all sorts of horrible things may justified under this aegis. Also, if you consider it impossible for things to work out worse, then why wait for Petraeus' report in September? You already "know" that things are better in Iraq.


I'll put these claims in the same bucket I place your $200/barrel claim. Unless you can back this up, of course...

Well Ok lets say we pull out quickly and the whole region goes into chaos that would be worse. Looking back now is just a waste of time IMO. We are there and the ME is a key area as we are addicted to the oil which the morons we have (and have had) In the Congress refuse to allow us to drill our own oil.

The Petraeus report will tell us if there is a chance the Iraqi army can deal with the conflict without us at some point. Also we could have a political solution by that time that would bring the Madhi army into the government.





I have numerous times to the point I am done with it. The “if Bush said it is wrong” crowd does not care to even read about it so go back and look it up. Just an fyi the Iraq with nukes by 2007 was a comment made recently by Tenant. Needless to say there is tons of WMD data the left refuses to even consider – and I have posted much of it.......

And the Iran with nukes in 5 years was -

Exclusive: Iran Nuclear Bomb Could Be Possible by 2009
April 02, 2007 6:15 PM

Brian Ross and Christopher Isham Report:

Iran has more than tripled its ability to produce enriched uranium in the last three months, adding some 1,000 centrifuges which are used to separate radioactive particles from the raw material.

The development means Iran could have enough material for a nuclear bomb by 2009, sources familiar with the dramatic upgrade tell ABC News.

The sources say the unexpected expansion is taking place at Iran's nuclear enrichment plant outside the city of Natanz, in a hardened facility 70 feet underground.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/0...sive_iran_.html

First of all Iran is going to have nukes, there is nothing stopping them. The most we can do is impose economic sanctions and that will have a marginal effect. Secondly, Iraq was very close to having a functional nuke before the first Gulf War and I don't think there is any doubt who Saddam would have used it on. I seen a picture of the current President of Iran talking about the Iranian nuclear program in front of a banner that said, 'An end to Zionism in our time'. We know what the intent is here, the prize will be determning how to neutralize the threat.

The surge, commonly refered to as plus up, is vitally important to neutralizing threats to the stability of the region. I grieve the loss of Americans going in harms way in this region but I do not believe their lives have been lost in vain. Iran has been surronded and if they are stupid enough to pursue this ill conceived course of lunacy we will deal with them from a position of strength.

Actually the sanctions do hurt and will be effective if the EU does not wimp out over trade $$$. The question is will the people and the Mullahs put up with the “hurt” just to have nukes?

Anxious investors crowd into the exchange every day. For two years, they've watched the market plummet due to American and U.N. sanctions imposed on Iran for its refusal to stop enriching uranium.

A big chill has settled over the business community. Investors have been scared off, and it's almost impossible to move money through major Iranian banks on the sanctions blacklist — like Bank Sepah, with its strong links to Iran's Revolutionary Guard.

Hardball sanctions enforcement, led by the U.S. Treasury, means that Bank Sepah is no longer doing business with anyone much outside Iran. In fact, it's been so effectively cut off that even though it's got plenty of cash, it can't pay its overseas debts.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/0...sive_iran_.html


I agree and you can be sure that if the west fails to act Israel will – regardless of the potential of dire consequences to peace in the region – they will have little choice.

I wasn't asking you to look back; I was asking you to look forward. So, I assume by this response that I was correct: you believe there is no circumstance where Iraq can work out unfavorably. Also, we do drill for our own oil; we just don't have enough to meet our demands.


What happens if this isn't the case? Will you believe Iraq will still work out favorably? Will you still think Iraq was "worth it"?


Yes, Iraq could have eventually had nukes. It was very far away from it mostly because of the targeted bombings Israel made in the 1980s of Iraq's nuclear facilities. Yes, Iraq did have WMD back in the 1980s and early 1990s. However, chemical/biological WMD have a limited lifespan. They must be "refreshed" about every 1-2 years because they decay. It is the decayed remnants of chemical WMD that post-invasion (and pre-invasion) searchers discovered.

What you are declaiming here is simply scaremongering. It is the same reason why you cite things like $200/barrel. You are employing a logical fallacy: Appeal to Fear. Such rhetorical devices are transparent and do not serve you well when making your case.

Um... and the Iran stuff is off-topic.

Yes it can “work out unfavorably” If we pull out as some Dems want to do and the region goes to hell that would be worse – esp. if Iran gets control of southern Iraq.

. And we drill for only a fraction of our own oil. We have lots more in the gulf, in Alaska and off the coasts.





Wrong. The first inspectors said they were 2 years or less in 1991.



This is the same crap used by all of the left and refuted a 100 times. VX and anthrax have long shelf life and Iraq had the capability to “refresh” as well, The subject of UN 1441 was the tons of missing WMD as detailed by Blix (not BUSH) so go read what he said. I have posted it and an sick and tired of doing it.

All Iraq had to do to stop us invading was show proof they destroyed the WMD they admitted to having produced after the UN found records of its production.


No it is you with head buried in the sand listening to who? To you know all the Dems who said Iraq was a dire threat in 1998 and many in 2002. Here is one statement by Butler in 1998 after which we were tossed out,….. refute it if you can sir.

“Butler also put UNSCOM's work in historical perspective, stressing
that the issue is disarmament and the desire of the majority of the
countries around the world to end the arms race as they enter the 21st
century.


"As you listen to Iraq's propaganda keep your eye on the ball: what is
at issue here is disarmament," he said.


"The fact is that Iraq created a quantity and quality of weapons of
mass destruction that, when one thinks of the size of the industrial
base, etc., was virtually unique, breathtaking in its scope and its
danger to its region and population beyond," Butler said.

"The Security Council was right in recognizing that fact and setting
up a mechanism to deal with that problem," said Butler, who is an
Australian disarmament expert.

"But the uranium they are enriching could not be used in the Russian nuclear power reactor they are currently building."

Am I the only one that finds this statement disturbing? Great link by the way, you have obviously given this a lot of thought. If this is true then it is proof positive that Iran's intent is not benign.






Ted, they simply don't care. The issue is not whether or not they will have them because like I said before there is nothing stopping them. The issue is whether they will have the criminal intent to actually use them. The sanctions hurt the elite in Iran, there is no question about that and their markets suffer, again no question. The EU had better hold the line because if they don't then they are more of a target then the US. How many terrorist attacks do you recall in Europe over...say the last few years?



Remarkably well researched and detailed description of the situation. Thanks for that, you might want to think of one more aspect that may not have occured to you. What did the economic sanctions do to Japan? It hurt them, I have no doubt about that but did it provoke them? Just a question meant to give you reason to pause.




I can see we are in agreement on this point. However, there is no way we will let them use those weapons. The US military knows how to neutralize atomic threats, they have been doing that for half a century now, do they really have the right to say they don't know what to do in a worse case scenerio?

It is very important that Israel not be provoked and the threat is very real. It is also very important to realize we don't want to provoke Iran because they will have this capability very soon. The situation is difficult but not impossible, the challenge is to let the Iranian people know just how devastating using one of those things will be, the rest will happen naturally.

Thanks for the link.

Allow me to respond to General McCaffrey, who I respect but doesn't see what an average guy on the ground sees.

1st: The Maliki government has given the green light to prune out elements of the renegade Sadr organization in Baghdad…
When will the pruning take place? It surely hasn't happened yet.

2nd: The US and Iraqi Forces have now dramatically changed their operational scheme. More then 50+ Iraqi Police/Army and US Army Joint Security Stations (JSS) are now being emplaced across the city and extended into the suburbs…
Agreed. We have JSS's and COP's springing up all over the muhallas. And almost every day they get hit with small arms fire, RPG or mortars. But they also recieve a sizable number of tips and intel from the people in most neighborhoods.

3rd: The Iraqis have finally committed credible numbers of integrated Police and Army units to the battle of Baghdad…
Yes.....but of extremely varying allegiances and levels of reliability.

4th: There is a real and growing ground swell of Sunni tribal opposition to the Al Qaeda-in-Iraq terror formations…
I suppose so.......I don't really have visibility on something like that.

5th: The equipment and resources for the Iraqi Security Forces has increased dramatically…
Yes, they even have new paint schemes for the IP and NP vehicles! Now if they would only learn the art of planning and sustaining, they may rise to the level of partners in this fight.

6th: Reconciliation of the internal warring elements in Iraq will be how we eventually win the war in Iraq—-if it happens. There is a very sophisticated and carefully integrated approach by the Iraqi government and Coalition actors to defuse the armed violence from internal enemies and bring people into the political process…
Hah! I've seen transcripts and assessment notes from meetings that narrate the political infighting and bickering.

7th: US Combat forces are simply superb…
Awww....shucks. But we aren't invincible. We get tired, complacent and demoralized just like any other army.

Ted, you simply must face a hard fact.......the Mahdi Army is already in the government. As much as this may sound defeatist, the only viable solution may be to court the Shia's and attempt to bring JAM into a quasi-democratic mode, with our support. It certainly couldn't turn out worse than the outcome that I foresee.

Also, my previous comment of crappy internet is not a part of some nefarious government ploy to limit internet access. They would simply yank it all away if that were the case. My frustration lies in the third country national that administers the private use-for-pay access that I have while at the FOB. The server is always 'down', or you just can't find the knucklehead to pay for your next month, and he turns you off.
The recent crackdown on sites like MySpace concerns accessing them from a work laptop (on the system we call the NIPR). Sites like those can cause bandwidth usage that slows the system down for offical business. Our MWR (free) internet cafe on the FOB still allows those sites (just not porn, peer-to-peer, etc.)

We seem to agree in most cases but I am not sure there is the political will in the US to act against Iran. Given they are some years from a bomb the next administration will have to deal with it. The Iraq war will make both parties reticent Imo to attack Iran for any reason.

We may actually prefer that Israel do the dirty work in this case using conventional weapons. The problem is the Iranians have buried their processing deep and conventional weapons may not touch them in witch case they will have the bomb at some point.


I strongly agree and I see Petraeus moving to make this happen. There is little doubt this will happen buy it must be worked out in a way that does not drive the Sunni’s out of the government. Could be tricky.


How is the weather over there now? Getting hot?

Keep you head down Dontredonme!

I just a couple days ago attended a fascinating lecture given by Ambassador David Satterfield, Senior Advisor to the Secretary of State and Coordinator for Iraq. He spoke at length about the sucesses and failures in Iraq, though as a member of the current administration he was not quite as forthright about the failures as General Sir Richard Dannett or Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt in their lectures here last year... none the less he was surprisingly frank about the current situation, and the hope for success.

He detailed the Troop surge as a means, not an end, a last ditch effort to create enough stability in Baghdad to allow the Iraqi government to start governing, despite his admission that so far, they had proven singularily unable to do so. In fact just a week ago the Iraqi government stood on the brink of collapse (again) faced with threats to withdraw support from the various strong-men in his cabinet.


The line he laid out, assuming it reflects the new line for the White House, is that should the status quo continue, the failure of the troops surge will be blamed on the Iraqi government and its inability to govern. Now the fact is, this is actually probably a fair assessment, the single largest of many failures has been the singular inability of the Iraqi government to actually do anything productive. They have not even been able to spend their own budgets, or keep track of arms shipments from the US, large portions of which have 'dissapeared' into insurgent hands.


Regardless, it looks like the US administration is bracing itself for failure, and the fact that part of the failure IS the fault of the Iraq government is not entirely a valid defence, considering pretty much every analyst in the western world was saying this three years ago.


So when even Bush Jr representatives are speaking about the surge in Iraq as if it was, if not a failure, then certainly failing...


Post-lecture, he was asked about the slight drop in sectarian violence inside baghdad when compared to the massive surge in such violence outside and near baghdad, he admitted the insurgency was not being defeated, simply temporarily displaced. The most damning part of this, of course, is look at the ISG analysis of why a 'troops surge' would be an expensive waste of time, and you find all the things that are currently happening. Pity Bush Jr spent so much trouble setting up a bipartisan committee with full access to advise on the next step of the war, and then utterly ignored everything they had to say in their eport, a report now being proven sadly prophetic...