The war in Iraq infuriates me!

[George Jung]

But hey, by all means lay out this plan that would have made Saddam comply without force. What?  Are we talking about the same things? I mean after all the world only tried just about everything under the sun during those 12 years and it failed to make saddam comply. But come on now, lay out this master plan that would make him have complied.

Saddam, Saddam, Saddam.  If it's all about Saddam what are we doing.  Okay, Saddam need to be taken out forcefully (did I say different).  We need to occupy a country for four years (with little end in sight even after his capture and removal, and start a civil war) to accomplish something?

You don't even make sense to me.  You show no sign of trying to view things from a different perspective other than from your own distorted position.  Forget it, I don't even want to bother anymore.

[BigSky]

Saddam, Saddam, Saddam.  If it's all about Saddam what are we doing.  Okay, Saddam need to be taken out forcefully (did I say different).  We need to occupy a country for four years (with little end in sight even after his capture and removal, and start a civil war) to accomplish something?

You don't even make sense to me.  You show no sign of trying to view things from a different perspective other than from your own distorted position.  Forget it, I don't even want to bother anymore.

Hmm you claimed we reacted to 9/11 by going to war without trying anything else, despite the fact we did try other things.  Was that your perspective to claim we didnt do "other" things when in fact we did?   Now you admit he needed to be taken out by force.    Hmmm what happened to all your wondrous "other" things we should have tried that were not tried for 12+ freaken years and did not work?

Did you really think that we would go into Iraq and remove Saddam only and then let the country fall into the hands of terrorists.  Did you really think that would happen and we would say f*** it to the people of Iraq, our job is done in removing Saddam, go fend for yourselves.  Jeeesh

[Black]

... Just to satisfy my curiosity what would Gore have done after 9/11?  Raised taxes and made the recession turn into a depression?  Worn a keffiyeh and tried to talk the terrorists into "making nice"?  What would he have done about Saddam shooting at US planes in Iraq?  Waited until the pilot death toll was an international disgrace?  Would Saddam still be allowing terrorists to train in Iraq? killing the Kurds by the thousands?  raising terrorists grandsons skilled in torture? still defying the UN?  I know it's pure conjecture, but what do you think Gore would have done other than preach his silly global warming theories?

Anyone care to guess or speculate on what Gore would have done if elected?

[Sara]

I'm going to guess...nothing? 

[Sluff]

Slightly more than John Kerry.

[skillpete]

Why waste time even thinking about non-occurances and what if's. The fact is 9/11 happened while George Bush is in office and look at the state our country, Iraq and the world is in now, a total complete mess which makes GW look like a total incompetent, stubborn and arrogant president who doesn't seem to give 2 craps about catching bin ladden. and please stop bringing up Clinton, why not bring up Reagan or Bush Sr and compare how much they did to prevent terrorism. Instead of repeating what Hannity's been saying for the last 6 years, why not gather data from from as many credible sources as we can instead of the ridiculous Rubert Murdock machine known as FOX. He's not even American. And if we're going to bring up what we've been trying to do for 12 years with Saddam over and over again, then why not question Bush SR.again who was and still is in bed with the Saudi's for his family's oil companies, the very terrorists who performed 9/11! This isn't a left or right issue anymore, this is an American issue and we're in trouble because Bush doesn't want to secure our borders or our ports (remember Dubai) and don't forget the American border agents who are serving 11 years in prison by roughing up an illigal drug dealer trying to cross the border, and when they asked Bush for a parden, he publicly refused it and said he that he supported the decision of our courts, but wait.. wasn,t that the libs again....stop the bulls***t and wake up, thats why Im a registered independant. Support our troops in Iraq, and support our troops who came home and need medical attention for years to come and not shut them out!

[BigSky]

Why waste time even thinking about non-occurances and what if's. The fact is 9/11 happened while George Bush is in office and look at the state our country, Iraq and the world is in now, a total complete mess which makes GW look like a total incompetent, stubborn and arrogant president who doesn't seem to give 2 craps about catching bin ladden. and please stop bringing up Clinton,

I suppose you do not want clinton brought up.  Fact he said he was going to get bin laden years ago.  Like I said before.  I suspect Mr. Clinton and OJ are down in Florida playing golf and deciding whom they should go after first, bin laden or the mysterious person who killed Ron and Nichole.

why not bring up Reagan or Bush Sr and compare how much they did to prevent terrorism.

By all means bring it up. 

And if we're going to bring up what we've been trying to do for 12 years with Saddam over and over again, then why not question Bush SR.again who was and still is in bed with the Saudi's for his family's oil companies, the very terrorists who performed 9/11!

Did ANY Saudi family members commit 9/11?  Why such a racist attitude of convicting all Saudis, especially those of the royal family, for those saudis who were members of al-qaeda and who actually despise the Saudi Royal family?

The top Bush hater of this country as determined by the millions he spent against Bush, George Soros was also linked to the Saudi family because of  business dealings.   Interesting huh.

[Bill Peckham]

... Just to satisfy my curiosity what would Gore have done after 9/11?  Raised taxes and made the recession turn into a depression?  Worn a keffiyeh and tried to talk the terrorists into "making nice"?  What would he have done about Saddam shooting at US planes in Iraq?  Waited until the pilot death toll was an international disgrace?  Would Saddam still be allowing terrorists to train in Iraq? killing the Kurds by the thousands?  raising terrorists grandsons skilled in torture? still defying the UN?  I know it's pure conjecture, but what do you think Gore would have done other than preach his silly global warming theories?

Anyone care to guess or speculate on what Gore would have done if elected?

He would have had a much better environment to work in because he would have been working with a majority Republican Congress. Accountability, debate, the battle of ideas these are all features of divided government and Gore would have benefited from having to accommodate Congress, he'd have made better decisions. The Bush administration operated with limited checks until January of this year. This was to their detriment over all (except possibly in the short term). It was laziness or hubris or ... well back to Hamlet, assign motivation and you'll have your adjective ... but Gore would not have had that luxury and would have thus avoided the trap.

If Gore had been President he would have certainly used 9/11 to advance his agenda (just as the current administration has used/is using 9/11 to advance theirs). Global warming. A carbon tax or straight fuel tax, higher fuel economy standards ...we'd be using much less oil right now and a number of countries that are current US foreign policy challenges would have far fewer resources to fund their proxy adventures.

People matter - person for person the people filling out the government positions in a Gore administration would be more competent than the people who have staffed/are staffing the Bush administration. Better people, better outcomes.

[BigSky]

He would have had a much better environment to work in because he would have been working with a majority Republican Congress. Accountability, debate, the battle of ideas these are all features of divided government and Gore would have benefited from having to accommodate Congress, he'd have made better decisions. The Bush administration operated with limited checks until January of this year. This was to their detriment over all (except possibly in the short term). It was laziness or hubris or ... well back to Hamlet, assign motivation and you'll have your adjective ... but Gore would not have had that luxury and would have thus avoided the trap.

If Gore had been President he would have certainly used 9/11 to advance his agenda (just as the current administration has used/is using 9/11 to advance theirs). Global warming. A carbon tax or straight fuel tax, higher fuel economy standards ...we'd be using much less oil right now and a number of countries that are current US foreign policy challenges would have far fewer resources to fund their proxy adventures.

People matter - person for person the people filling out the government positions in a Gore administration would be more competent than the people who have staffed/are staffing the Bush administration. Better people, better outcomes.

That was kinda alot to say without actually answering all of Black's questions.

[Bill Peckham]

Well we're trying to generalize an unknowable I think the idea that better people make for better outcomes is pretty far reaching. This bigger then life Texas persona may play well in NASCAR country but it has worked against our interests. Who knows what opportunities President Gore would have that President Bush never had.

[Bill Peckham]

I know, bad form to reply to your own post but here is a specific. Gore would have hired Pat Lang.

From TPM http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
"When it comes to Middle East policy, career U.S. intelligence officer Patrick Lang is hardly a slouch. He was in charge of the Middle East, South Asia, and terrorism for the Defense Intelligence Agency in the 1990s, and was later tapped to run the Pentagon's international spying operations.

So when he sat down in 2001 with Doug Feith for a job interview, Feith probably should have been anxious to bring someone with Lang's experience, stature, and expertise into the young Bush administration. Feith needed someone to run the Pentagon's office of special operations and low-intensity warfare, and Lang had been recommended for the position. The interview didn't go well.
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002147.php
   

Lang went to see him, he recalled during a May 7 panel discussion at the University of the District of Columbia.

    "He was sitting there munching a sandwich while he was talking to me," Lang recalled, "which I thought was remarkable in itself, but he also had these briefing papers -- they always had briefing papers, you know -- about me.

    "He's looking at this stuff, and he says, 'I've heard of you. I heard of you.'

    "He says, 'Is it really true that you really know the Arabs this well, and that you speak Arabic this well? Is that really true? Is that really true?'

    "And I said, 'Yeah, that's really true.'

    "That's too bad," Feith said.

    The audience howled.

    "That was the end of the interview," Lang said. "I'm not quite sure what he meant, but you can work it out."

Feith & Co. apparently realized that it's best not to have too many qualified experts cluttering up the administration. Who knows what kind of reality-based policies they might have pursued?"

Gore would have pursued reality based policies.

[BigSky]

Well we're trying to generalize an unknowable I think the idea that better people make for better outcomes is pretty far reaching. This bigger then life Texas persona may play well in NASCAR country but it has worked against our interests. Who knows what opportunities President Gore would have that President Bush never had.

Hmm yet all we need to do is look to gores response to terrorism under the clinton administration and see just what he most likely would or in this case would not have done.

[Sluff]

I love a good debate. There are very good points from both sides of this debate and I don't want to see it end... but....Lets stop with the nasty PM's that have been reported to the moderators and remember everyone has the right to voice their opinions but lets not allow our beliefs to be so strong that we allow ourselves to resort to name calling or to get rude. 


Sluff/ Admin

[skillpete]

Latest US casualty body count 3474 as of 5/30/07

[Black]

Latest US casualty body count 3474 as of 5/30/07

During WWII my father saw that many killed in just a few hours.  Casualties are a horrible fact of war.  I would rather lose trained military in Iraq than more helpless civilians such as we lost on 9/11.

[Bill Peckham]

How about neither?

Before January 2003 Iraq was an issue but there were a multiplicity of options - any one of which today, we would happily grasp if it were still available - now after four years our policy has destabilized the entire region. The fly paper theory has been pretty thoroughly discredited by events.

When I read reports like this: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucgg/20070529/cm_ucgg/networkofterrorspreadsinshatteredmideastsocieties

Friends of [the president's] from Texas were shocked recently to find him nearly wild-eyed, thumping himself on the chest three times while he repeated "I am the president!" He also made it clear he was setting Iraq up so his successor could not get out of "our country's destiny."

I think ... We have a bad situation on our hands.

[George Jung]

It's a good thing this is not WWII.  What makes this loss of life more upsetting to me is that I am unable to justify it.  I feel like Iraq is more about oil and power than a war on terror, and with few to no reports on actual progress and headway in the battle, the casualty reports are all we get.  Why do we continue to justify our loss of troops by referring to WWII or Vietnam, or any other war for that matter, this battle is making history not revisiting it, the technological advances themselves deny us from such comparisons.  Our presence in Iraq sickens me as does the Bush adsministration.  I am so looking forward to the next election with a fresh group of candidates and the ousting of Bush!  He can take all the vacations he wants while the next guy is working on restoring the United States reputation.  I am ashamed to have such an idiot leader in charge of my country!

[George Jung]

Anyone else feel like this "war on terror" is alot like the "war on drugs"?

[Bill Peckham]

Anyone else feel like this "war on terror" is alot like the "war on drugs"?

Maybe the administration could declare war on whales.

We'd be able to walk across the ocean there'd be so many.

[BigSky]

How about neither?

Before January 2003 Iraq was an issue but there were a multiplicity of options - any one of which today, we would happily grasp if it were still available - now after four years our policy has destabilized the entire region. The fly paper theory has been pretty thoroughly discredited by events.

Maybe you might want to try listing these options for once instead of just claiming them time and time again.  Ohh please make sure they are none of the same options tried over the prior 12+ years that failed time and time again.

[BigSky]

It's a good thing this is not WWII.  What makes this loss of life more upsetting to me is that I am unable to justify it.  I feel like Iraq is more about oil and power than a war on terror, and with few to no reports on actual progress and headway in the battle, the casualty reports are all we get.  Why do we continue to justify our loss of troops by referring to WWII or Vietnam, or any other war for that matter, this battle is making history not revisiting it, the technological advances themselves deny us from such comparisons.  Our presence in Iraq sickens me as does the Bush adsministration.  I am so looking forward to the next election with a fresh group of candidates and the ousting of Bush!  He can take all the vacations he wants while the next guy is working on restoring the United States reputation.  I am ashamed to have such an idiot leader in charge of my country!

About oil?

Hmm we and the world bend over backwards for over a decade trying to get compliance and you think its about oil and power    

[Bill Peckham]

How about neither?

Before January 2003 Iraq was an issue but there were a multiplicity of options - any one of which today, we would happily grasp if it were still available - now after four years our policy has destabilized the entire region. The fly paper theory has been pretty thoroughly discredited by events.

Maybe you might want to try listing these options for once instead of just claiming them time and time again.  Ohh please make sure they are none of the same options tried over the prior 12+ years that failed time and time again.

Withdraw and focus on Afghanistan
Continue with the UN inspections
Continue with isolation/embargo
Engage in regional diplomacy
Do nothing
Go fishing
Watch a Rangers game
Really anything other than what they decided to do

I think the Bush administration and both parties in Congress would today embrace a dictator if he could control Iraq, keep it in one piece and allow us to withdraw. Right now we are looking down the barrel of a dissolved Iraq in civil war. The idea of a UN inspection regime that was offered in the weeks before the war sounds very good right now. There is no likely outcome that would of resulted from any course of action available to us in January 2003 that would have been worse than what we have today. Because of the actions this administration selected we have created a disaster that would have never happened if any other strategy was employed. What we have today is, or is leading to, or is threatening to become the very worse case scenario. The worse case scenario that we face today is an order of magnitude greater than any other worse case scenario an alternative strategy would have allowed.

But this idea of the fly paper theory is flawed on a fundamental level. People, including this administration, seem confused on what their job is exactly. Their job is not to protect you, to tuck you in at night. The President, the members of Congress, every solider and officer in the military all take an oath to defend the Constitution. They do not swear to keep you and aunt Bessy safe they swear to defend the Constitution. Our job - the Americans alive today, including the President - is to make sure the Constitution survives. So long as the Constitution is alive and well then we've covered our shift. If you look at the Vice-President's speech to West Point grads last week you see that he is saying that the Constitution is a barrier to keeping you safe tonight. He's saying that we'd be safer if those pesky Constitutional rights weren't in the way.

That is wrong. If we have to die to protect our Constitution then so be it but it is the Constitution that must survive, not you or I. And it is the Constitution that is gravely threatened.

[BigSky]

Withdraw and focus on Afghanistan
Continue with the UN inspections
Continue with isolation/embargo
Engage in regional diplomacy
Do nothing
Go fishing
Watch a Rangers game
Really anything other than what they decided to do

So much for the innuendo that another option could have been used to resolve the situation with Iraq and Saddam.

What you have listed amounts from sticking ones head into the sand hoping it will go away to 3 of them that were tried time and time again and failed.

As to the oath, 

It means far more than you seem to think.

[Bill Peckham]

Withdraw and focus on Afghanistan
Continue with the UN inspections
Continue with isolation/embargo
Engage in regional diplomacy
Do nothing
Go fishing
Watch a Rangers game
Really anything other than what they decided to do

So much for the innuendo that another option could have been used to resolve the situation with Iraq and Saddam.

What you have listed amounts from sticking ones head into the sand hoping it will go away to 3 of them that were tried time and time again and failed.

As to the oath, 

It means far more than you seem to think.

That's exactly the point. We did not have to resolve anything. We had plenty of other things to take care of, we could have lived with the situation as is, threatening more effectively after our quick success in Afghanistan. If he had not blundered into Iraq our quick success in Afghanistan would have been an effective motivator to people like Saddam.

We managed to tolerate the Soviets for 40 years without seeking some final resolution. We've managed to live with Castro 90 miles from the US mainland for 50 years without resolving that situation. We've managed to live with North Korea - no one's wackier then Kim il Sung - without seeking to resolve the Korean war. Iraq had no solution, it should be clear that one could not "resolve the situation with Iraq and Saddam" no matter what you did. What more evidence could one possibly need?

[BigSky]

That's exactly the point. We did not have to resolve anything. We had plenty of other things to take care of, we could have lived with the situation as is, threatening more effectively after our quick success in Afghanistan. If he had not blundered into Iraq our quick success in Afghanistan would have been an effective motivator to people like Saddam.

We managed to tolerate the Soviets for 40 years without seeking some final resolution. We've managed to live with Castro 90 miles from the US mainland for 50 years without resolving that situation. We've managed to live with North Korea - no one's wackier then Kim il Sung - without seeking to resolve the Korean war. Iraq had no solution, it should be clear that one could not "resolve the situation with Iraq and Saddam" no matter what you did. What more evidence could one possibly need?

So it should not have been resolved despite time and time again Saddam committing acts of war and terror on the US and his forbidden association with terrorists. 

As to the soviets, castro and N korea there are vast differences in them compared to saddam.