New Republican Talking Point

[101A]

I first read it yesterday in the Dick Morris Article; now this morning I've heard from two separate media sources.

It goes like this:



The orignal Gulf War never ended, we simply retreated to Saudi Arabia to keep an eye on Saddam and enforce our sanctions.
Osama HATED this and actually made it one of his major contentions with the U.S. and Saudi Arabia in his fatwa calling for jihad (big, scary islamastremist words).
As long as Saddam was in power we couldn't remove our troops from Saudi Arabia.
Whatever the cost we HAD to get rid of Saddam, because as long as we were there, we couldn't get on with the war on terror - because our mere presence was pissing Muslims off.
We couldn't just leave (Saddam would have been seen as a victor).
Jihadists see victory over the West as an EVEN GREATER recruiting tool than an actual HOT WAR against us (this tidbit skillfully declassified to discredit the previous NIE leak - which I now believe was Rove all along)
Ultimately defeating the insurgents in Iraq is the single biggest blow we could deliver to the Jihadists.


This scenario, which seems perfectly plausible and logical has now been out there for 24 hours, and there has been no response, or call of "foul" from the Democrats.

I don't know about you, but I've never seen this spelled out before. Taken as a package it is brilliant politically. If somebody calls for us to pull out, they can now be called REALLY dumb for giving the Jihadists a recruiting tool - and if someone claims that our presence in Iraq is the recruiting tool, the pro-war croud can cite Osama's own words and fatwa in claiming that our having to contain Saddam by remaining in Saudi Arabia wa ALREADY a primary recruiting tool. This makes arguing against the war futile (just cleaning things up to get on with the war on terror), and calling for a pull-out just stupid.

Well played, Rove.

[boutons_]

"The orignal Gulf War never ended"

Of course it did. Saddam was kicked out of Kuwait, as the strongly supported UN resolution called for. As his invading army retreated, it was destroyed by an orgy of "coaltion of the billing" military firepower. All shooting, and threat of shooting, stopped.

The occupation of nearby countries like SA, the close, constant surveillance, the flyovers were required to dissuade and contain Saddam and his broken military which remained broken and no threat.

"As long as Saddam was in power we couldn't remove our troops from Saudi Arabia."

Not true. With the close survelliance by satellite and US flyovers from Turkey and other non-nearby countries, any Iraq troop movements (which were detected by the US before the Kuwait invaision without the US stationed in SA). The US installed itself in SA to protect SA oil and as a base to attack Kuwait. If SA would have insisted the US leave SA, the US could have moved to Kuwait and been just as effective of a containing deterrant and protector of US oil supplies.

After Kuwait was liberated, the US could have moved ALL of its SA bases to Kuweit and nearby countries, getting US boots off Osama's native, sacred SA sand (Mohammed, Medina, Mecca). But I doubt the US was going to the expense of vacating SA and move to Kuwiat just because it was pissing off OBL. Plus the SA royal family has serious man love of Poppie.

"We couldn't just leave (Saddam would have been seen as a victor)."

Not true. UN mandate was to remove Saddam from Kuwait, Mission Accomplished, was NOT remove Saddam from Iraq. Saddam was in no way victorious. His invasion of Kuwait was an Iraq military disaster, from which Iraq never recovered.

"Jihadists see victory over the West as an EVEN GREATER recruiting tool"

What victory over the west? The first Gulf War? There's no way the West lost the First Gulf War.

"Ultimately defeating the insurgents in Iraq is the single biggest blow we could deliver to the Jihadists."

The insurgents term applied when the primary target was the US occupying invaders. The insurgency is now distantly secondary to the sectarian civil war.

The US military at 150K has been, is now, and will always be too small to impose security on the totality of Iraq. Shinsheki was right, Rummy and neo-con desk jockeys were and are wrong. The Repug refusal to increase the US military to a winning level is just another incompetent failure of Repug civilians refusing to meet actual military requirements.

"Taken as package", this sucks hind tit.

The phony Iraq war was is ALREADY jihadist recruiting tool, and opened the door for al Qaida to install itself seriously in Iraq for the first time.

The inability of the Repug's too-small military

1) to stop the insurgency and

2) to stop the sectarian civil war

... is ALEADY a jihadist recruiting tool. Strategically, the Repugs have tied down the US military in Iraq for no US gain, while Syria and Iran look as strong as ever.

The Repugs could have put themselves in a much better position to win in Iraq if they had put in 400K+ troops, or raised the level to 400K+ troops when the insurgency got going. The Repugs are incompetent and THEY are losing Iraq.

The Repug incompetents and their red-state supporters who outright refuse to fight in the war will lose the war in Iraq, and hand a huge victory to the jihadists.

Anti-war dissenters will not be the cause of losing Iraq, but I fully appreciate your intention of placing the blame for the 100% Repug failure and the failure of their chicken-shit, hypocrital red-state electors, onto anti-war dissenters.

So, 101A, keep sucking Rove's filthy, slime-spewing dick. You two deserve each other.

[johnsmith]

"The orignal Gulf War never ended"

Of course it did. Saddam was kicked out of Kuwait, as the strongly supported UN resolution called for. As his invading army retreated, it was destroyed by an orgy of "coaltion of the billing" military firepower. All shooting, and threat of shooting, stopped.

The occupation of nearby counties like SA, the close, constant surveillance, the flyovers were required to dissuade and contain Saddam and his broken military which remained broken and no threat.

"As long as Saddam was in power we couldn't remove our troops from Saudi Arabia."

Not true. With the close survelliance by satellite and US flyovers from Turkey and other non-nearby countries, any Iraq troop movements (which were detected by the US before the Kuwait invaision without the US stationed in SA). The US installed itself in SA to protect SA oil and as a base to attack Kuwait. If SA would have insisted the US leave SA, the US could have moved to Kuwait and been just as effective of a containing deterrant and protector of US oil supplies.

After Kuwait was liberated, the US could have moved ALL of its SA bases to Kuweit and nearby countries, getting US boots off Osama's native, sacred SA sand (Mohammed, Medina, Mecca). But I doubt the US was going to the expense of vacating SA and move to Kuwiat just because it was pissing off OBL. Plus the SA royal family has serious man love of Poppie.

"We couldn't just leave (Saddam would have been seen as a victor)."

Not true. UN mandate was to remove Saddam from Kuwait, Mission Accomplished, was NOT remove Saddam from Iraq. Saddam was in no way victorious. His invasion of Kuwait was an Iraq military disaster, from which Iraq never recovered.

"Jihadists see victory over the West as an EVEN GREATER recruiting tool"

What victory over the west? The first Gulf War? There's no way the West lost the First Gulf War.

"Ultimately defeating the insurgents in Iraq is the single biggest blow we could deliver to the Jihadists."

The insurgents term applied when the primary target was the US occupying invaders. The insurgency is now distantly secondary to the sectarian civil war.

The US military at 150K has been, is now, and will always be too small to impose security on the totality of Iraq. Shinsheki was right, Rummy and neo-con desk jockeys were and are wrong. The Repug refusal to increase the US military to a winning level is just another incompetent failure of Repug civilians refusing to meet actual military requirements.

"Taken as package", this sucks hind tit.

The phony Iraq war was is ALREADY jihadist recruiting tool, and opened the door for al Qaida to install itself seriously in Iraq for the first time.

The inability of the Repug's too-small military

1) to stop the insurgency and

2) to stop the sectarian civil war

... is ALEADY a jihadist recruiting tool. Strategically, the Repugs have tied down the US military in Iraq for no US gain, while Syria and Iran look as strong as ever.

The Repugs could have put themselves in a much better position to win in Iraq if they had put in 400K+ troops, or raised the level to 400K+ troops when the insurgency got going. The Repugs are incompetent and THEY are losing Iraq.

The Repug incompetents and their red-state supporters who outright refuse to fight in the war will lose the war in Iraq, and hand a huge victory to the jihadists.

Anti-war dissenters will not be the cause of losing Iraq, but I fully appreciate your intention of placing the blamine for the 100% Repug failure and the failure of their chicken-shit, hypocrital red-state electors, onto anti-war dissenters.

So, 101A, keep sucking Rove's filthy, slime-spewing dick. You two deserve each other.


I disagree with Boutons. That's all I'll say because he has me on ignore anyway.
Having said that, I wonder if Boutons knows it's not the "repugs" that have sent troops into Iraq, it's AMERICA.

[101A]

So, 101A, keep sucking Rove's filthy, slime-spewing dick. You two deserve each other.

Way to miss the point.

These aren't my points, they are the Republican points, and I believe we are going to start seeing them more and more leading up to the election.

I did not post this as a defense of anything, just an observation of what I beleive to be a new, unforeseen, and possibly succesful political strategy.

How you responded is not new.

[clambake]

Boutons, of course this talking point isn't true. It's to convince the easily convinceble.

Stroke of genious.

[boutons_]

Way to miss the point.

You adore the filthy, scum-bag "brilliant Rove.

The talking points are typical Repug bulllshit, Rove or not. The Iraq war is a disaster in many ways and the Repugs assume no responsibility for it.

The Repugs are 100% responsible for starting, running, and bungling the Iraq war.

The anti-war dissenters have NO responsibiltiy for what's going on Iraq, as hard as the Repugs will try to culpabilize the dissenters.

[clambake]

It's not like Rove is trying to persued a nation of scholars. It's brilliant. Lex Lutherish.

[101A]

Way to miss the point.

You adore the filthy, scum-bag "brilliant Rove.

The talking points are typical Repug bulllshit, Rove or not. The Iraq war is a disaster in many ways and the Repugs assume no responsibility for it.

The Repugs are 100% responsible for starting, running, and bungling the Iraq war.

The anti-war dissenters have NO responsibiltiy for what's going on Iraq, as hard as the Repugs will try to culpabilize the dissenters.

As a political strategist, I believe it is pretty much conventional wisdom that Rove is the best in the business. That doesn't mean I adore him. It means he's good at his job.

Hitler was charismatic.
Clinton is a great orator.
Bush sees the world as good vs. evil, black and white with little grey area.
Hillary is a very smart woman.

All are statements of which I would probably get little argument from many people on either side of the political aisle. Somehow you see each as taking a political position, apparently. Not very logical. Maybe you are just a bot.

[ChumpDumper]

So the new Repuiblican talking point is to blame everything on Bush's dad?

Brilliant.

[101A]

So the new Repuiblican talking point is to blame everything on Bush's dad?

Brilliant.


Semantics. :lol

My point is that I have heard this rationilization (we had to get out of Saudi Arabia because OBL didn't like us being there) THREE times in the past day, when I never heard it before.

I heard it from three separate sources - Morris, a local Pittsburgh morning show (which might be on the talking point fax list), AND on a local TV station's news broadcast Iraq war update.

This is right after the NIE leak last week, followed by the Clinton explosion, followed by the declassification...and every report I have seen on the declassification has mentioned the part about jihadists seeing Iraq as the primary battleground right now, and that losing there would kill there momentum. Now this morning are reports about the president of Iraq stating that the only reason his country hasn't been invaded is because of our troop presence there.

I am not a big believer in coincidences, and the Iraq war, which was as recently as a week ago a HUGE plus for the Democrats, could turn to a negative, or a draw very quickly. Or does someone want to argue that the US voting populace has a great attention span and long memory?

[ChumpDumper]

Or does someone want to argue that the US voting populace has a great attention span and long memory?I will argue that the US voting populace won't make it through all seven points without flipping over to a "King of the Hill" rerun.

[clambake]

All Rove has to do is tell the enormous masses of stupidity that the "sky is falling".

It's diabolical. I salute you, sir.

[101A]

I will argue that the US voting populace won't make it through all seven points without flipping over to a "King of the Hill" rerun.

:lol

The seven points won't ever be expected to be digested ALL at once - the big one is the "Had to get out of Saudi" one - I expect Limbaugh and Hannity to be selling that ALL day - it'll probably then show up on the Sunday A.M. shows next week, and as a sound bite from a Tony Snow press conference sometime in the interim.

[101A]

I will argue that the US voting populace won't make it through all seven points without flipping over to a "King of the Hill" rerun.


OR.....

Bobby: Dad, why are we fighting those evil guys with funny towels on their heads iin Iraq.

Hank: Well, Bobby, because the one with the (pauses) biggest towel said we had to get out of another country over there with guys with different towels on their heads, to keep the price of propane down.

Boomhauer: Yeah....man.......propane.....so ...spensive....man.

Bobby: Wow, dad, I'm glad your job makes you so smart about the guys with towels on their heads.

Hank: That boy aint right.

[101A]

Gtownspur added another piece in his rant in the "liberal media at work" thread.

He points out that he believes 9/11 occurred BECAUSE we had troops in Saudi Arabia (since that was what OBL SAID and he planned 9/11); thus tying the need to invade Iraq directly to 9/11.

[boutons_]

"tying the need to invade Iraq directly to 9/11."

There is no tie, only lie.

The US could have stayed put in SA or neighboring countries and held down Saddam as well as it did from 1991 to 2003.

Invading Iraq in order to vacate SA is total bullshit.

Invading Iraq, which didn't execute the WTC attack, because OBL, who did execute the WTC attack, hated the US military in SA is the kind of non-sequitur and lie we've been hearing from the Repugs (and jerks like gaytown) since 2002.

[Yonivore]

The orignal Gulf War never ended, we simply retreated to Saudi Arabia to keep an eye on Saddam and enforce our sanctions.
This is neither new or untrue.

Hostilities ceased when Saddam Hussein retreated from Kuwait and agreed, in writing, to several U.N.S.C. demands. One of which required our on-going presence in the region; the no-fly zones. Nevermind he failed to keep any of the agreements to which he signed and nevermind that neither the U.N. nor Bill Clinton bothered to enforce the terms of the cease-fire.




Osama HATED this and actually made it one of his major contentions with the U.S. and Saudi Arabia in his fatwa calling for jihad (big, scary islamastremist words).
Nope, not a new point. If you read his 1996 fatwa, which probably motivated every al Qaeda attack from that time on (including the U.S.S. Cole and September 11), this is exactly what he did.




As long as Saddam was in power we couldn't remove our troops from Saudi Arabia.
Again, not new or untrue. Considering his blatant disregard for over a dozen U.N.S.C. resolutions demanding action from him, I'd say this is a fair characterization of the situation.




Whatever the cost we HAD to get rid of Saddam, because as long as we were there, we couldn't get on with the war on terror - because our mere presence was pissing Muslims off.

I haven't seen this stated in this way anywhere but, to be sure, maintaining a Saddam Hussein "in a box" was a considerable draw on resources that could be used elsewhere.




We couldn't just leave (Saddam would have been seen as a victor).
Not a new point and not untrue. If we had just abandoned our responsibilities under the cease-fire and resulting U.N.S.C. resolutions, that would have been seen as handing Saddam Hussein a victory. He would have been unrestrained in pursuing whatever objectives he had in mind.




Jihadists see victory over the West as an EVEN GREATER recruiting tool than an actual HOT WAR against us (this tidbit skillfully declassified to discredit the previous NIE leak - which I now believe was Rove all along)
Their ultimate goal is a global caliphate and, it has been their ultimate goal since before we invaded Iraq. Further, this caliphate can't exist in the climate of the religious freedoms and personal liberties inherent in western-style cultures.




Ultimately defeating the insurgents in Iraq is the single biggest blow we could deliver to the Jihadists.
They certainly seem to see it that way. All you have to do is look at the correspondence between Zarqawi and others in the Jihadist camp to know they are placing damn near all their marbles in Iraq.


This scenario, which seems perfectly plausible and logical has now been out there for 24 hours, and there has been no response, or call of "foul" from the Democrats.

I don't know about you, but I've never seen this spelled out before.
That's because you don't pay attention.


Taken as a package it is brilliant politically. If somebody calls for us to pull out, they can now be called REALLY dumb for giving the Jihadists a recruiting tool - and if someone claims that our presence in Iraq is the recruiting tool, the pro-war croud can cite Osama's own words and fatwa in claiming that our having to contain Saddam by remaining in Saudi Arabia wa ALREADY a primary recruiting tool. This makes arguing against the war futile (just cleaning things up to get on with the war on terror), and calling for a pull-out just stupid.

Well played, Rove.
Again, "I wan't to be like Karl Rove, that bastard can do anything!"

[Oh, Gee!!]

The orignal Gulf War never ended, we simply retreated to Saudi Arabia to keep an eye on Saddam and enforce our sanctions.
Osama HATED this and actually made it one of his major contentions with the U.S. and Saudi Arabia in his fatwa calling for jihad (big, scary islamastremist words).
As long as Saddam was in power we couldn't remove our troops from Saudi Arabia.
Whatever the cost we HAD to get rid of Saddam, because as long as we were there, we couldn't get on with the war on terror - because our mere presence was pissing Muslims off.
We couldn't just leave (Saddam would have been seen as a victor).
Jihadists see victory over the West as an EVEN GREATER recruiting tool than an actual HOT WAR against us (this tidbit skillfully declassified to discredit the previous NIE leak - which I now believe was Rove all along)
Ultimately defeating the insurgents in Iraq is the single biggest blow we could deliver to the Jihadists.




This scenario would make sense if the ME hadn't become an even bigger mess once Saddam was removed from power.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Osama HATED this and actually made it one of his major contentions with the U.S. and Saudi Arabia in his fatwa calling for jihad (big, scary islamastremist words).

I'm on lunch so I don't have time to hunt down everything, but Osama has said this many times, including his initial fatwa against the U.S.

[Yonivore]

This scenario would make sense if the ME hadn't become an even bigger mess once Saddam was removed from power.
I believe the Middle East was already headed for a bigger mess -- regardless of whether or not Saddam Hussein had remained in power.

[boutons_]

"I believe the Middle East was already headed for a bigger mess"

and you believe Genesis is scientifically accurate cosmology. Fuck your beliefs, they're worthless.

Even if the ME were heading for a bigger mess, why the hurry the mess by invading Iraq?

especially:

when Iraq was serving as a doorstop for Iran?

when Iraq was no direct threat to USA?

while the Afghanistan invasion was still in play?

while the real anti-US threats and terrorists were elsewhere?

Iraq is an unmitigated strategic blunder by the Repugs, right up there with the Repugs 100% responsiblity for not stopping the WTC attack.

[ChumpDumper]

I haven't seen this stated in this way anywhere but, to be sure, maintaining a Saddam Hussein "in a box" was a considerable draw on resources that could be used elsewhere.Yeah, those resources could be used inside Iraq at a much higher rate and cost..

Brilliant.

[Yonivore]

Yeah, those resources could be used inside Iraq at a much higher rate and cost..

Brilliant.
Actually, they're different assets.

[ChumpDumper]

Actually, they're different assets.Yeah. American lives.

And much cheaper right?

[Yonivore]

Yeah. American lives.

And much cheaper right?
Unless, you've got androids, humans are what are commonly used in an Army.

Look, this goes to whether or not you believe the war in Iraq is legitimate. If you don't, the loss of one American life is unacceptable. If, like me, you believe the war in Iraq is legitimate, loss of life, while a tragedy, is a recognized cost of engaging in war.

I understand you believe the war in Iraq is illegitimate, that's what this discussion is usually about but, throwing out that it is illegitimate because American lives are being lost is not a valid point.

I actually think this discussion over the NIE is good because it shows there are several more reasons regime change in Iraq and, subsequent to that, fighting al Qaeda and the insurgency in Iraq are a desirable alternative to fighting al Qaeda in Seattle or Michigan or San Antonio.

Which, everyone agrees, may eventually happen but, as the NIE points out, that is less likely if we defeat them in Iraq -- or, if they perceive themselves to be beaten in Iraq.

[ChumpDumper]

Your argument is that it was more cost effective or a more efficient use of our assets to invade and occupy Iraq than contain Saddam. How much did the containment really cost? I'm sure there's a long-winded blog you could steal the numbers from.
I actually think this discussion over the NIE is good because it shows there are several more reasons regime change in Iraq and, subsequent to that, fighting al Qaeda and the insurgency in Iraq are a desirable alternative to fighting al Qaeda in Seattle or Michigan or San Antonio.Nah, it's not like the were ever going to send thousands of terrorists at a time to the US. Twenty did considerable damage.
Which, everyone agrees, may eventually happen but, as the NIE points out, that is less likely if we defeat them in Iraq -- or, if they perceive themselves to be beaten in Iraq.Will they? The only thing I've really heard the US is trying to do in Iraq is wait around until the Iraqi forces are ready to take over -- not keep fighting until all the terra-ists are dead. So which is it?

[Yonivore]

Your argument is that it was more cost effective or a more efficient use of our assets to invade and occupy Iraq than contain Saddam.
I think you're simplifying the dynamics.

The Ba'athist regime of Saddam Hussein was toppled in less than 3 weeks at a cost considerably less than what had been spent in the preceding 12 years. Period. There was no longer a need to contain him and he was no longer an issue. This is something you can't argue.

The resulting insurgency and influx of al Qaeda is a fight we would have had to have had somewhere, whether it was in Iraq or some other place to where the terrorists had chosen to flee when we were invading Afghanistan. The fact remains, al Qaeda was fleeing to Iraq -- some having set up shop in the 90's -- way before we invaded Iraq. So, what better place to stage the fight?

Where should we have engaged them? They weren't staying in Afghanistan.j


Nah, it's not like the were ever going to send thousands of terrorists at a time to the US. Twenty did considerable damage.
You're being naive if you think the ultimate objective of the terrorists is just to continue terrorizing. You do understand that they eventually want a global caliphate and, if they can do it 20 terrorists at a time, they will. But, I doubt that template would have continued working for them with any success.

Eventually, they'll have to attack us here on a grander scale if they wish to subjugate this country...which, is their eventual aim. Just in case you've just pulled your head out of the sand.


Will they? The only thing I've really heard the US is trying to do in Iraq is wait around until the Iraqi forces are ready to take over -- not keep fighting until all the terra-ists are dead. So which is it?
Both. Once the Iraqis have a handle on the insurgency, I think the terrorists will leave for other pastures or, just disperse.

[ChumpDumper]

I think you're simplifying the dynamics.You're ignoring the real cost of invasion.
The Ba'athist regime of Saddam Hussein was toppled in less than 3 weeks at a cost considerably less than what had been spent in the preceding 12 years. Period. There was no longer a need to contain him and he was no longer an issue. This is something you can't argue.Where are your numbers, Yoni? You are talking about costs and savings, so you obviously have numbers.
The resulting insurgency and influx of al Qaeda is a fight we would have had to have had somewhere, whether it was in Iraq or some other place to where the terrorists had chosen to flee when we were invading Afghanistan. The fact remains, al Qaeda was fleeing to Iraq -- some having set up shop in the 90's -- way before we invaded Iraq. So, what better place to stage the fight?Revisionist bullshit at its finest. That line of logic necessitates a prediction of the large-scale insurgency.

You made no such prediction because Rummy didn't and the blogs you steal from didn't. So don't try to act like it was the plan all along.

[ChumpDumper]

You're being naive if you think the ultimate objective of the terrorists is just to continue terrorizing.You're being naive if you think they'll just stop.
Eventually, they'll have to attack us here on a grander scale if they wish to subjugate this country...which, is their eventual aim.But, they'll give up if we "win" in iraq. Make up your mind.

[Yonivore]

You're being naive if you think they'll just stop.
They may have no choice. Did you even read the entire NIE? Iraqis aren't interested in Shari'a law and I doubt the terrorist will be able to institute it there. Eventually, they will be reduced to a point where they are at odds with the insurgency over this point and, when that happens, along with Iraq getting a handle on the insurgency, either by getting the factions to join the political process (which has, to some extent, already happened) or by defeating them militarily, the terrorists will be unwelcome there. After all, for the most part, they've been killing innocent Iraqi civilians and police officers...not U.S. Soldiers.


But, they'll give up if we "win" in iraq. Make up your mind.
Where'd I say they'd give up? I believe it has been expressed in the NIE that if they lose in Iraq it will be a lot harder for them to recruit Jihadis for the cause. I don't think they'll ever give up.

But, I don't think white supremists will ever give up on their cause either.

It's a matter of marginalizing them, stablizing the region, and containing outbreaks.

[ChumpDumper]

They may have no choice. Did you even read the entire NIE?No and neither did you, doofus. It's classified.
Iraqis aren't interested in Shari'a law and I doubt the terrorist will be able to institute it there. Eventually, they will be reduced to a point where they are at odds with the insurgency over this point and, when that happens, along with Iraq getting a handle on the insurgency, either by getting the factions to join the political process (which has, to some extent, already happened) or by defeating them militarily, the terrorists will be unwelcome there.And then when we leave and the ethnic cleansing begins. They'll be back, or coming in for the first time since it's simply stupid to think every single terrorist is active in Iraq at this moment.

[Yonivore]

No and neither did you, doofus. It's classified.
Well, I guess you've run out of arguments and proceded to name-calling. Always good in an argument.

The unclassified part was clear on this.


And then when we leave and the ethnic cleansing begins. They'll be back, or coming in for the first time since it's simply stupid to think every single terrorist is active in Iraq at this moment.
They? Who is they? And, why would they be interested in Iraq once we leave?

Are you ever optimistic about the future?

[ChumpDumper]

Well, I guess you've run out of arguments and proceded to name-calling. Always good in an argument.You asked if I read the entire NIE. It was a question only a doofus would make. I was being kind.
They? Who is they?I'll type it slowly so you might get it.

The

ter

ror

ists.
And, why would they be interested in Iraq once we leave?Why wouldn't they?
Are you ever optimistic about the future?Not the near future in this area, no. You'd have to ask me about some other place.

[Yonivore]

You asked if I read the entire NIE. It was a question only a doofus would make. I was being kind.
Actually, it was a mistake. I meant the unclassified portions, but, fine.


I'll type it slowly so you might get it. The

ter

ror

ists.
That'd be pretty stupid, I think. They'd be unwelcome by everyone -- since there'd no longer be a common enemy and the insurgency would have been presumably pacified.


Why wouldn't they?
Why would they? The only reason they fled there in the first place was because Saddam Hussein allowed it. With him out of power and a decidedly anti-Saddam Hussein government in power, I doubt they'd find much safe haven anywhere.


Not the near future in this area, no. You'd have to ask me about some other place.
Sorry I asked. I wasn't really that interested.

[ChumpDumper]

That'd be pretty stupid, I think. They'd be unwelcome by everyone -- since there'd no longer be a common enemy and the insurgency would have been presumably pacified.Nah, there's always an enemy. The big violence after we leave will be Shiite on Sunni. Book it.
Why would they?It's an unstable muslim country.
The only reason they fled there in the first place was because Saddam Hussein allowed it.I won't pretend Saddam was in complete control of his entire country after the Gulf War. Ok.
With him out of power and a decidedly anti-Saddam Hussein government in power, I doubt they'd find much safe haven anywhere.You're assuming the government will be a strong centralized one. I assume the government ultimately won't be able to control the guys with the guns since the only thing preventing a genocide now is the presence of US troops. Many individuals and groups are just waiting until we leave because they know we will someday.

[Yonivore]

Nah, there's always an enemy. The big violence after we leave will be Shiite on Sunni. Book it.
You book it. I'm not a betting man.


It's an unstable muslim country.
Well, if we meet our objective, it won't be when we leave.


I won't pretend Saddam was in complete control of his entire country after the Gulf War. Ok.
He was in complete control of Baghdad where other terrorists had already taken up residence and of Salmon Pak where al Qaeda was being trained. I won't pretend Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist regime didn't have a relationship with al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, okay? Okay.


You're assuming the government will be a strong centralized one. I assume the government ultimately won't be able to control the guys with the guns since the only thing preventing a genocide now is the presence of US troops. Many individuals and groups are just waiting until we leave because they know we will someday.
No, I'm assuming we won't leave until the country is stable and able to provide for it's own security. Hey, we're still in Germany 60 years after we pacified it. What's to say we won't keep a few bases in or near Iraq to make sure they remain stable?

[ChumpDumper]

Well, if we meet our objective, it won't be when we leave.If our objective is the Iraqization of the conflict, it won't have to be.
Hey, we're still in Germany 60 years after we pacified it.You're saying we'll be in Iraq for sixty years?
What's to say we won't keep a few bases in or near Iraq to make sure they remain stable?We'll keep a base in Kurdistan because it will be stable. The base won't make it stable.

[Yonivore]

If our objective is the Iraqization of the conflict, it won't have to be.
Again, your policy initiatives won't gain any traction in the SpursTalk.com forum. Obviously, those who propose this solution have been voted down.


You're saying we'll be in Iraq for sixty years?
Maybe. But, probably not. I have no idea. I don't think anyone knew we'd be in Germany for 60 years.


We'll keep a base in Kurdistan because it will be stable. The base won't make it stable.
Whatever it takes.

[ChumpDumper]

Again, your policy initiatives won't gain any traction in the SpursTalk.com forum. Obviously, those who propose this solution have been voted down.It's not my policy. It's Bush's.
Maybe. But, probably not.Decisive.
Whatever it takes.Remember those words.

[xrayzebra]

You're ignoring the real cost of invasion.Where are your numbers, Yoni? You are talking about costs and savings, so you obviously have numbers.Revisionist bullshit at its finest. That line of logic necessitates a prediction of the large-scale insurgency.

You made no such prediction because Rummy didn't and the blogs you steal from didn't. So don't try to act like it was the plan all along.

Where are you numbers dummy. Numbers in war mean nothing. We had how
many people in uniform during the WWII, about 7 million or was it 9 million. We
spent how much in terms of wealth in today's dollars?

How bout you give us some numbers. You cant because you cant. No one
can. All you can do is throw up walls and false arguments. The real questions are: do we want to win? do we have the resources to win?
what did Saddam do with his WMD, not if he had them. We know he had
them, what did he do with them. It is an important question.

Go back under you rock and let the men do the heavy lifting for you.

[ChumpDumper]

How bout you give us some numbers.I wasn't the one crowing about the savings gained from invasion and occupation.
You cant because you cant. No one can.I can find all kinds of numbers about what the invasion and occupation has cost. The question was can numbers be found for the cost of containing Saddam previously. I can't think of any special provisions outside the regular budget being made, can you?
The real questions are: do we want to win? do we have the resources to win?Sure we have the resources, or we can get them. The question is are we really willing to commit those resources?
what did Saddam do with his WMD, not if he had them. We know he had them, what did he do with them. It is an important question.:lmao Are we safer now that we know nothing about them?
Go back under you rock and let the men do the heavy lifting for you.Sorry I got you all riled up with questions you can't answer. go take a nap. You're overtired.

[spurster]

I guess the WMD "talking point" isn't working anymore, and the "spreading democracy" one isn't working either.

If a "legitimate" war requires rejustification every year or so, how legitimate can it be?

Orwell's 1984 has to be the most politically astute novel of the previous century.

[valluco]

I guess the WMD "talking point" isn't working anymore, and the "spreading democracy" one isn't working either.

If a "legitimate" war requires rejustification every year or so, how legitimate can it be?

Orwell's 1984 has to be the most politically astute novel of the previous century.
E-fucking-xactly.

[101A]

I guess the WMD "talking point" isn't working anymore, and the "spreading democracy" one isn't working either.

If a "legitimate" war requires rejustification every year or so, how legitimate can it be?

Orwell's 1984 has to be the most politically astute novel of the previous century.

Attempting to manipulate public opinion was happening before the Federalist Papers. Orwell was no more a predicter of the future of mankind than Marx.

Atlas Shrugged is much more politically astute.

[ChumpDumper]

How bout you give us some numbers. You cant because you cant. No one can.WASHINGTON -- A new congressional analysis shows the Iraq war is now costing taxpayers almost $2 billion a week -- nearly twice as much as in the first year of the conflict three years ago and 20 percent more than last year -- as the Pentagon spends more on establishing regional bases to support the extended deployment and scrambles to fix or replace equipment damaged in combat.

The upsurge occurs as the total cost of military operations at home and abroad since 2001, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, will top half a trillion dollars, according to an internal assessment by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service completed last week.

The spike in operating costs -- including a 20 percent increase over last year in Afghanistan, where the mission now costs about $370 million a week -- comes even though troop levels in both countries have remained stable. The reports attribute the rising costs in part to a higher pace of fighting in both countries, where insurgents and terrorists have increased their attacks on US and coalition troops and civilians.

Another major factor, however, is "the building of more extensive infrastructure to support troops and equipment in and around Iraq and Afghanistan," according to the report. Based on Defense Department data, the report suggests that the construction of so-called semi-permanent support bases has picked up in recent months, making it increasingly clear that the US military will have a presence in both countries for years to come.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/09/28/cost_of_iraq_war_nearly_2b_a_week/

Would the numbers be easier to understand if I typed them out with all the zeros?

[Yonivore]

WASHINGTON -- A new congressional analysis shows the Iraq war is now costing taxpayers almost $2 billion a week -- nearly twice as much as in the first year of the conflict three years ago and 20 percent more than last year -- as the Pentagon spends more on establishing regional bases to support the extended deployment and scrambles to fix or replace equipment damaged in combat.

The upsurge occurs as the total cost of military operations at home and abroad since 2001, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, will top half a trillion dollars, according to an internal assessment by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service completed last week.

The spike in operating costs -- including a 20 percent increase over last year in Afghanistan, where the mission now costs about $370 million a week -- comes even though troop levels in both countries have remained stable. The reports attribute the rising costs in part to a higher pace of fighting in both countries, where insurgents and terrorists have increased their attacks on US and coalition troops and civilians.

Another major factor, however, is "the building of more extensive infrastructure to support troops and equipment in and around Iraq and Afghanistan," according to the report. Based on Defense Department data, the report suggests that the construction of so-called semi-permanent support bases has picked up in recent months, making it increasingly clear that the US military will have a presence in both countries for years to come.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/09/28/cost_of_iraq_war_nearly_2b_a_week/

Would the numbers be easier to understand if I typed them out with all the zeros?
What did the 3 week invasion and overthrow of the Ba'athis regime cost. Because that was my point...if you'll look back.

The resulting insurgency and war with terrorists is something I believe we would have had to fight anyway...if not in Iraq, in some other god-forsaken place.

Tell me if the three week invasion and overthrow of the Ba'athist regime cost more than the 12 years of maintaining troops in Arabia and patrolling the no-flyzone as well as trying to infiltrate the regime, force him to comply with UNSC Resolutions, etc...

[ChumpDumper]

What did the 3 week invasion and overthrow of the Ba'athis regime cost. Because that was my point...if you'll look back.And it was ridiculous to pretend that was the only cost then too. That was my point.
The resulting insurgency and war with terrorists is something I believe we would have had to fight anyway...if not in Iraq, in some other god-forsaken place.You didn't think it would happen in Iraq.
Tell me if the three week invasion and overthrow of the Ba'athist regime cost more than the 12 years of maintaining troops in Arabia and patrolling the no-flyzone as well as trying to infiltrate the regime, force him to comply with UNSC Resolutions, etc...Why should I act like those three weeks occurred in a vacuum? The cost of occupation is a direct result of the "cheap" invasion. One doesn't happen without the other.

Applying current cost ratios for each conflict to the total, let's say the invasion and occupation of Iraq has cost about $400,000,000,000. What's your number for the 12 years before the invasion?

[Yonivore]

And it was ridiculous to pretend that was the only cost then too. That was my point.
That doesn't answer the question.


You didn't think it would happen in Iraq.
But it did and, who's to say that if it hadn't happened in Iraq it wouldn't be happening in a much more costly manner (in terms of both human and economic costs) in a much more hostile environment?


Why should I act like those three weeks occurred in a vacuum? The cost of occupation is a direct result of the "cheap" invasion. One doesn't happen without the other.
We disagree over the characterization of what happened after the invasion. I believe what has occurred in Iraq after we overthrew the regime of Saddam Hussein would have happened elsewhere -- possibly even in Iraq itself but, later on when even you realized that's to where the terrorists were fleeing to set up shop after we invaded Afghanistan -- and, who knows what the cost of that would have been?


Applying current cost ratios for each conflict to the total, let's say the invasion and occupation of Iraq has cost about $400,000,000,000. What's your number for the 12 years before the invasion?
Again, that's not the argument I'm making. I think the invasion and overthrow of the Ba'athist regime is one action and the resulting insurgency (joined by terrorists) is a completely separate action.

And, if you consider that we'd be having this same war sometime in the future, possibly even in Iraq, because, well, the terrorists weren't just going to go away if they didn't go to Iraq, then you can't compare what's gone on in Iraq since April '03 - for comparative purposes - to what took place in the preceding 12 years.

I know you want to but, you have to ask yourself this question. If we had restricted our combat operations to Afghanistan what was to become of the large numbers of terrorists that were fleeing to Iraq?

Would they have just retired there and given up on their terrorist ways?

[ChumpDumper]

That doesn't answer the question.Then ask a relevant question.
But it did and, who's to say that if it hadn't happened in Iraq it wouldn't be happening in a much more costly manner (in terms of both human and economic costs) in a much more hostile environment?Which other countries were we invading?
We disagree over the characterization of what happened after the invasion. I believe what has occurred in Iraq after we overthrew the regime of Saddam Hussein would have happened elsewhereI believed something like that would happen in Iraq. And it did. You can't tell me you had half a trillion dollars earmarked to fight someone else's civil war three years ago. It's complete bullshit.
Again, that's not the argument I'm making. I think the invasion and overthrow of the Ba'athist regime is one action and the resulting insurgency (joined by terrorists) is a completely separate action.And it's complete bullshit. It's EXACTLY the reason Saddam wasn't removed after the Gulf War and you know it. One happened because of the other and they can't be seperated for your convenience.
I know you want to but, you have to ask yourself this question. If we had restricted our combat operations to Afghanistan what was to become of the large numbers of terrorists that were fleeing to Iraq?You keep talking about these huge numbers, but never actually use numbers. How many?
Would they have just retired there and given up on their terrorist ways?That's your interpretation of the NIE for Iraq now, so why not then for Afghanistan? They had their asses handed to them and pretty much the entire world was working against them or disowning them -- including Iran if you care to remember.