Reply With Quote
The understatement of the 21st century.What we expected to achieve was never realistic
washingtonpost.com
U.S. Lowers Sights On What Can Be Achieved in Iraq
Administration Is Shedding 'Unreality' That Dominated Invasion, Official Says
By Robin Wright and Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, August 14, 2005; A01
The Bush administration is significantly lowering expectations of what can be achieved in Iraq, recognizing that the United States will have to settle for far less progress than originally envisioned during the transition due to end in four months, according to U.S. officials in Washington and Baghdad.
The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society in which the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say.
"What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground," said a senior official involved in policy since the 2003 invasion. "We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we're in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning."
Administration officials still emphasize how much they have achieved despite the chaos that followed the invasion and the escalating insurgency. "Iraqis are taking control of their country, building a free nation that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself. And we're helping Iraqis succeed," President Bush said yesterday in his radio address.
Iraqi officials yesterday struggled to agree on a draft cons ution by a deadline of tomorrow so the do ent can be submitted to a vote in October. The political transition would be completed in December by elections for a permanent government.
But the realities of daily life are a constant reminder of how the initial U.S. ambitions have not been fulfilled in ways that Americans and Iraqis once anticipated. Many of Baghdad's 6 million people go without electricity for days in 120-degree heat. Parents fearful of kidnapping are keeping children indoors.
Barbers post signs saying they do not shave men, after months of barbers being killed by religious extremists. Ethnic or religious-based militias police the northern and southern portions of Iraq. Analysts estimate that in the whole of Iraq, unemployment is 50 percent to 65 percent.
U.S. officials say no turning point forced a reassessment. "It happened rather gradually," said the senior official, triggered by everything from the insurgency to shifting budgets to U.S. personnel changes in Baghdad.
The ferocious debate over a new cons ution has particularly driven home the gap between the original U.S. goals and the realities after almost 28 months. The U.S. decision to invade Iraq was justified in part by the goal of establishing a secular and modern Iraq that honors human rights and unites disparate ethnic and religious communities.
But whatever the outcome on specific disputes, the do ent on which Iraq's future is to be built will require laws to be compliant with Islam. Kurds and Shiites are expecting de facto long-term political privileges. And women's rights will not be as firmly entrenched as Washington has tried to insist, U.S. officials and Iraq analysts say.
"We set out to establish a democracy, but we're slowly realizing we will have some form of Islamic republic," said another U.S. official familiar with policymaking from the beginning, who like some others interviewed would speak candidly only on the condition of anonymity. "That process is being repeated all over."
U.S. officials now acknowledge that they misread the strength of the sentiment among Kurds and Shiites to create a special status. The Shiites' request this month for autonomy to be guaranteed in the cons ution stunned the Bush administration, even after more than two years of intense intervention in Iraq's political process, they said.
"We didn't calculate the depths of feeling in both the Kurdish and Shiite communities for a winner-take-all at ude," said Judith S. Yaphe, a former CIA Iraq analyst at the National Defense University.
In the race to meet a sequence of fall deadlines, the process of forging national unity behind the cons ution is largely being scrapped, current and former officials involved in the transition said.
"We are definitely cutting corners and lowering our ambitions in democracy building," said Larry Diamond, a Stanford University democracy expert who worked with the U.S. occupation government and wrote the book "Squandered Victory: The American Occupation and the Bungled Effort to Bring Democracy to Iraq."
"Under pressure to get a cons ution done, they've lowered their own ambitions in terms of getting a do ent that is going to be very far-reaching and democratic. We also don't have the time to go through the process we envisioned when we wrote the interim cons ution -- to build a democratic culture and consensus through debate over a permanent cons ution," he said.
The goal now is to ensure a cons ution that can be easily amended later so Iraq can grow into a democracy, U.S. officials say.
On security, the administration originally expected the U.S.-led coalition to be welcomed with rice and rosewater, traditional Arab greetings, with only a limited reaction from loyalists of ousted Iraqi president Saddam Hussein. The surprising scope of the insurgency and influx of foreign fighters has forced Washington to repeatedly lower expectations -- about the time-frame for quelling the insurgency and creating an effective and cohesive Iraqi force capable of stepping in, U.S. officials said.
Killings of members of the Iraqi security force have tripled since January. Iraq's ministry of health estimates that bombings and other attacks have killed 4,000 civilians in Baghdad since Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafari's interim government took office April 28.
Last week was the fourth-worst week of the whole war for U.S. military deaths in combat, and August already is the worst month for deaths of members of the National Guard and Reserve.
Attacks on U.S. convoys by insurgents using roadside bombs have doubled over the past year, Army Brig. Gen. Yves Fontaine said Friday. Convoys ferrying food, fuel, water, arms and equipment from Kuwait, Jordan and Turkey are attacked about 30 times a week, Fontaine said.
"There has been a realistic reassessment of what it is possible to achieve in the short term and fashion a partial exit strategy," Yaphe said. "This change is dictated not just by events on the ground but by unrealistic expectations at the start."
Washington now does not expect to fully defeat the insurgency before departing, but instead to diminish it, officials and analysts said. There is also growing talk of turning over security responsibilities to the Iraqi forces even if they are not fully up to original U.S. expectations, in part because they have local legitimacy that U.S. troops often do not.
"We've said we won't leave a day before it's necessary. But necessary is the key word -- necessary for them or for us? When we finally depart, it will probably be for us," a U.S. official said.
Pressed by the cost of fighting an escalating insurgency, U.S. expectations for rebuilding Iraq -- and its $20 billion investment -- have fallen the farthest, current and former officials say.
Pentagon officials originally envisioned Iraq's oil revenue paying many post-invasion expenses. But Iraq, ranked among world leaders behind Saudi Arabia in proven oil reserves, is incapable of producing enough refined fuel amid a car-buying boom that has put an estimated 1 million more vehicles on the road after the invasion. Lines for subsidized cheap gas stretch for miles every day in Baghdad.
Oil production is estimated at 2.22 million barrels a day, short of the goal of 2.5 million. Iraq's pre-war high was 2.67 million barrels a day.
The United States had high hopes of quick, big-budget fixes for the electrical power system that would show Iraqis tangible benefits from the ouster of Hussein. But inadequate training for Iraqi staff, regional rivalries restricting the power flow to Baghdad, inadequate fuel for electrical generators and attacks on the infrastructure have contributed to the worst summer of electrical shortages in the capital.
Water is also a "tough, tough" situation in a desert country, said a U.S. official in Baghdad familiar with reconstruction issues. Pumping stations depend on electricity, and engineers now say the system has hundreds of thousands of leaks.
"The most thoroughly dashed expectation was the ability to build a robust self-sustaining economy. We're nowhere near that. State industries, electricity are all below what they were before we got there," said Wayne White, former head of the State Department's Iraq intelligence team who is now at the Middle East Ins ute. "The administration says Saddam ran down the country. But most damage was from looting [after the invasion], which took down state industries, large private manufacturing, the national electric" system.
Ironically, White said, the initial ambitions may have complicated the U.S. mission: "In order to get out earlier, expectations are going to have to be lower, even much lower. The higher your expectation, the longer you have to stay. Getting out is going to be a more important consideration than the original goals were. They were unrealistic."
Knickmeyer reported from Baghdad.
The understatement of the 21st century.What we expected to achieve was never realistic
Policy by poll.Getting out is going to be a more important consideration than the original goals were.
so what now? just say "oops, sorry, we have to go, hope you can rebuild your country by yourselves"? LOL
We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we're in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning."
UN-realities? Is that like our UN-treaties and the UN-Geneva Conventions and the UN-doing of our UN-freedoms. It's that simple, someone in the White House simply sticks a "UN" in front to make something go away. Ask any Conservative...it's all the UN's fault!
if you haven't noticed, we're still there trying dumbass...
No one has intellegent conversations on this board anymore(not that they ever did). The Democrats are for Democrats and the Republicans are for the Republiucans. Does it matter what anyone thinks? This has become a place to bash each other.....much like the Jerry Springer show. I think it needs to be renamed "the comedy spot". Have a nice day!
But wait...
What happened to:
All the US is going to do is install a puppet government?
Quagmire(after being there for 2 years)?
We'll be there for the next 40 years?
In fact, what happened to every dumbass that was printed in the paper 50,000 times during the course of the war, when the media was acting like we have lost 50 million men in this war, instead of the phonomenally low total of less than 2000?
I think, other than disbanding Saddam's army too easily...the US has been true to their word in every thing promised for the future of Iraq at the beginning of this war, and made few diversions from their plan to remove Saddam and give the Iraqi's freedom as promised.
The problems have arisen with the man elected to lead that country...
He basically ran on a platform of getting the US out of Iraq...
That's why at every press conference his first statement is...THE US NEEDS TO LEAVE...followed by the smaller print of....(after we make sure I won't get overthrown the day after they leave).
Basically they need US help to do this...and they are being to prideful to ask for it and accept it.
Instead they keep spouting off about how they are going to do it themselves, but they too prideful, and frankly they haven't got a clue how to achieve it...
So what you have here is a situation with the elected leader saying he wants the US out...
And you have a bunch of idiots here in the US wanting to cut and run(and all of you who say it's the Republicans pushing for this, because you know who you ing are)...
So the US is aquiescing and rushing things...
Is it a mistake? It definitely is.
Both on the part of the elected Iraqi leadership and the idiots here at home that want to create Afghanistan Part 2.
But what cannot be denied is that when the US leaves it will have kept it's promise to remove Saddam...and left the future of the Iraqis up to the Iraqis themselves...they kept their word and they did the honorable thing...but you won't hear the left over here saying that...THEY'LL FLIP FLOP...and you'll never hear one of those guys that was claiming puppet government say he was saying that originslly...instead he'll be critical of the fact that we didn't do that.
But if Al Jaffari lasts 6 months after the US leaves....I'll be amazed. If his life ends dying of natual causes, instead of assasination...I'll be even more amazed.
The bottom line is that the Iraqis needs the help of the US to make this succeed...if they don't want the help then that's their problem. I guess that's what happens when you buy into anti-US propaganda...
I always found these arbitrary deadlines very troubling -- putting the cart before the horse. Declaring an end to major military operations when there were many more to come; having elections before the country was completely pacified, disenfranchising a huge number of Iraqis needed to form any consensus government; now pulling out before the most basic issues of security and infrastructure are settled -- it all adds up to a half-assed operation.
This really seems like cutting and running because too many Americans are dying and the voters here are tired of it. As much as the opposition to invasion was ignored when the polls were in their favor, the administration really seems to be responding now that the numbers have changed.
I certainly welcome anyone else's interpretation of this policy shift. The way I see it, we either made colossal miscalculations from the start or are changing our Iraq policy now for domestic political reasons.
Um...the popularly elected leader of Iraq says he wants the US out of Iraq at the beginning of every speech...the US is saying fine...you want it you got it...
You can't stay there when the guy in charge is asking you to leave. That will incite outrage in every corner of the middle-east, and turn even the basically agreeable Iraqi Shiites against us and we will in fact be occupying.
Right now...now one can say we didn't keep our word to the Iraqis about what we would do when we got there...Saddam gone. Popularly elected government...or cons ution writers at least, in place.
You are basically saying we should stay there against the wishes of their popularly elected leader....
This dumbass has an America out of Iraq platform, he ran spouting the same BS propaganda that liberals and the Arab media lie about continually...and he's going to have to deal with that stance on his own.
And by the way...the US never had a policy to be there long term...so pulling out does not indicate a policy shift..they never had a publicly stated policy on how long they would be there...but basiacally they said they'd be there until the Iraqis could take care of their security themselves, and they'd help rebuild the country. Their leader obviously feels that day is close, and he really isn't interested in US help rebuilding the country....more power to him.
That was a great argument against the invasion of Iraq in the first place -- that ship has sailed.That will incite outrage in every corner of the middle-eastWill he even be in power after the "real" elections are held? He's a provisional leader -- we can wait until the "real" elected leader comes into power. All we're hearing from this guy is his stump speech for the next election.the popularly elected leader of Iraq
So we're quite happy with a par ion or an islamic theocracy allied with Iran once we're gone? And we won't have control over the skies like we used to before the invasion?And by the way...the US never had a policy to be there long term...so pulling out does not indicate a policy shift..they never had a publicly stated policy on how long they would be there...but basiacally they said they'd be there until the Iraqis could take care of their security themselves, and they'd help rebuild the country.
Sure...and leave a dictator and murderous UN sanction in place...you're an idiot. This guy is popularly elected...Saddam was a dictator. And he wasn't as well liked in the middle east as you claim...on top of that...
And I think you are misguied on how many Arabs were against us removing Saddam....the majority of Iraqis were obviously in favor of it...
The resistance now isn't so much against the US as it is putting the majority Shias in power.
I don't know...my guess is that he'll probably be dead by that time...but if the representatives and leaders of the provisional government are asking us to leave...we have to honor that request. We sanctioned those elections and we can't ignore the will of their people or else we invalidate the legitimacy of everything we have done up to this point.Will he even be in power after the "real" elections are held? He's a provisional leader -- we can wait until the "real" elected leader comes into power.
Damn why don't you go ing catch up on what's been going on in Iraq instead of relying on your own stupidity to draw conclusions.All we're hearing from this guy is his stump speech for the next election.
This guy got elected as the provisional leader on that platform...he copped into Sadr's voter base...he basically unified the Sistani and Sadr Shia's....
He's an Iraqi John Kerry....
You need to pay better attention to what's going on over there...I'd say the US is more popular over there now than it was before the War...there is a trust building process going on over there....It's going to be awfully hard to keep claiming we are over there trying to take over the middle east(a chief recruiting device for terrorism)...unless we do what you are asking.
You want 30 years of change and propagandizing defeated overnight...it's not going to happen that quickly. But you need to pull your head out of your dumb cynical ass and wake up to what is going on over there in the middle east right now.
If we cut and run, that's very likely to happen again -- or par ion -- or an Islamic theocracy alied with Iran. If that's the end result, would it really be worth it?Sure...and leave a dictator and murderous UN sanction in place.Do you have any actual numbers? I think most Arabs aren't terribly well-informed anyway and simply don't like the west ing around in their backyard in any way at all.And I think you are misguied on how many Arabs were against us removing Saddam.So why are Americans still being targeted?The resistance now isn't so much against the US as it is putting the majority Shias in power.And then what?I don't know...my guess is that he'll probably be dead by that time.There will be another election, will there not? That's what's going on.Damn why don't you go ing catch up on what's been going on in IraqWhich is why the popular position is to ask the US to leave -- yeah, that makes perfect sense.I'd say the US is more popular over there now than it was before the WarI am well aware what is happening; ensuring a stable democracy in Iraq is less important than the midterm elections. However cynical I may seem, your dumb ass should know that the politicians are moreso -- and you're stupider than I thought if you think that a US-friendly western-style democracy in Iraq is a sure thing if we pull out according to our election cycle.But you need to pull your head out of your dumb cynical ass and wake up to what is going on over there in the middle east right now.
What is your solution? Install a puppet government?
FYI...there was a faction of the US government that wanted to rig the elections...Bush nixed it...
You know what he said at the time? Democracy is Democracy...
The government may not be a true Democracy...but the process by which it was put in power certainly was.
I don't think anyone expected the Iraqis to install a totally Western Democracy...I think it was always expected there would be Theocratic elements to it...
We did want a secular government that guranteed womens rights....and this is some of what is delaying the cons utional process right now...this is the main reason for the US being so steadfast on their self imposed deadline...
They'll have to comprimise to make that deadline.
And we won't have control over the skies like we used to before the invasion?
Um the control of the skies was there to enforce the no fly zone that was a condition of the cease fire agreement with Saddam. This just in...Saddam is gone and thus all claim for the right and need of a no fly zone is gone with them.
And the support of that zone wasn't based in Iraq...it was based in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. We are still in Kuwait...and quite popular there.
We have largely moved out of Saudi and into Qatar....but we gained more strategic foot holds in the middle east since 2001...Or haven't you noticed Iran's asshole puckering at record levels lately?
The new government being based on Islamic Law is not exactly a US preference...but at the same time...it's going to be awfully hard for them to say we are an enemy of Islam when we basically allowed the Iraqis to install one...I think we'll gain more friend out of this than enemies.
And just because they are Shia's does not make them carbon copies of the
Iranians...nor will this government be Iran part 2.
Yes the Iraqi leader is friendly with Iran but that's as much strategy as it is anything...Iran is their direct neigbor. That doesn't mean they are going to become Iran's chief ally...especially if it means the US is going to crawl up their ass again.
Let's wait and see if this new government is anti-US before we condemn them...Al Jaffari is pretty Westernized inspite of his Ilamic stance...he's trying to keep the support of the Sadr followers...Sistani is actually very Westernized in his ideals and he's still the major Islamic force in Iraq.
Shia as a whole is more progressive than Sunni...you don't see this with Iran because Iran is ran by the ultra conservative Shiites...but basically Shia is a lot more progressive as a whole than Sunni.
And the 911 terrorists and Al Qaeda are Sunnis.
Leaving at the request of the government isn't cutting and running. It's called respecting the process by which the Iraqis have chosen to govern themselves and rebuild their country.
If they par ion they par ion...if push comes to shove the Kurds will break off from the rest of the country(not an entirely bad idea if you ask me) and they'll be happy to have us as their guests.
As for whether or not it's worth it....Saddam being gone and a popularly elected government in the mid-east, for the first time, is definitely worth it.
Do you?Do you have any actual numbers? I think most Arabs aren't terribly well-informed anyway and simply don't like the west ing around in their backyard in any way at all.
The last polls I saw said that about 52% of Iraqis wanted the US to leave...
But 61% of them said it was worth the war to remove Saddam from power.
And the reason most of the Arab's are against the US is because they think we are trying to colonize the middle east and that we support opressive regimes...
No one can say this government is a US puppet...and no one can say we are trying to colonize Iraq either...unless we do what you are advocating.
Thanks to the arguments you are making...I believe I have finally found someone image dumber than W...congrats.
We aren't targeted by the Shias...the Shias are targeted too...and we damn sure aren't being targeted by the majority of the 26 million Iraqis.So why are Americans still being targeted?
Um...the reason the popular position is to ask the US to leave is because of all the idiot propaganda claiming that we are their to colonize Iraq...And then what?There will be another election, will there not? That's what's going on.Which is why the popular position is to ask the US to leave --
That's always been the consensus...yes Saddam going is a good thing...but you must prove you are not there to colonize...it's a two fold thing...That's been the consensus since Saddam fell and most people that remain critical in mid-east circles do so because they still don't trust our intentions there.
You are just pissed because you just said a week ago that we'd be there for 40 years...You have always tried to claim that and I have also said you were stupid for doing so.yeah, that makes perfect sense.I am well aware what is happening; ensuring a stable democracy in Iraq is less important than the midterm elections.
W is not cynical...he may be simple minded and overly idealistic...but this guy loves the John Wayne view of America...it's a sincere thing.However cynical I may seem, your dumb ass should know that the politicians are moreso --
and you're stupider than I thought if you think that a US-friendly western-style democracy in Iraq is a sure thing if we pull out according to our election cycle.
I think it will end up being a US friendly government that is more secular and better on human rights than most of the governments over there...
And like I said earlier...I don't think anyone ever expected Iraq to turn into the 51st state...Westernized is a relative term...maybe not so Westernized by our standards...but very Westernized by mid-east standards.
And I think there is a very good chance for a staunch alliance, even if it is an Islamic theocracy...as long as we keep our word and don't interfere in the process...and don't occupy against the will of the government.
It's the not the government the US wanted...but at the same time...they allowed the Iraqis to choose...you can't say you are over there to liberate them while you are imposing a government not chosen by the people on them...
This Iraq is not going to be Iran part 2....
Correction, the Bush Administration tried to 'fix' the numbers for Allawi, but the Shii'a turned up in such high numbers that it made vote rigging impossible.What is your solution? Install a puppet government?
FYI...there was a faction of the US government that wanted to rig the elections...Bush nixed it...
Cut and run after completely ing up a country -- is that really what we're all about here? If we end up with a theocracy aligned with Iraq, what's your plan then? Another invasion?What is your solution? Install a puppet government?Well, there was one lesson learned from Eisenhower in Vietnam. Bravo.FYI...there was a faction of the US government that wanted to rig the elections...Bush nixed it...Will he say that if the majority Shia establish a theocracy?You know what he said at the time? Democracy is Democracy...So we will meddle in their internal politics whan we think we can get away with it. And forgive my cynicism, but cons utions in the middle east have not proved to be very sacred -- we might consider ourselves lucky if the Iraqi cons ution follows the history of that of Pakistan. It's proven to be quite a malleable do ent, legitamizing all manner of repression, strongmen and coups. If Iraq actually ends up with a security force strong enough to actually control the country, their future may play out like Pakistan's past.We did want a secular government that guranteed womens rights....and this is some of what is delaying the cons utional process right now...this is the main reason for the US being so steadfast on their self imposed deadline...Your ability to completely miss the point never ceases to amaze.Um the control of the skies was there to enforce the no fly zone that was a condition of the cease fire agreement with Saddam. This just in...Saddam is gone and thus all claim for the right and need of a no fly zone is gone with them.I've noticed their starting up their nuclear program again. Are we to invade them too?[/QUOTE]Yes the Iraqi leader is friendly with Iran but that's as much strategy as it is anything...Iran is their direct neigbor. That doesn't mean they are going to become Iran's chief ally...especially if it means the US is going to crawl up their ass again.[/quote]But that guy will be dead in six months according to you -- what then?Or haven't you noticed Iran's asshole puckering at record levels lately?I've done no such thing. I'm just not sold that everythings going to be hunky-dory. It certainly is worth mentioning that the most successful nation-building achieved by the US was in Japan where we completely dictated the terms. This is a different situation to be sure.Let's wait and see if this new government is anti-US before we condemn them.
Last edited by ChumpDumper; 08-14-2005 at 02:32 PM.
We'll see.You are just pissed because you just said a week ago that we'd be there for 40 years.The men who actually make his policy for him defintely are, which is why we invaded Iraq instead of actually pusuing the terrorists.W is not cynical.
Right...and if NBAdan says it, it must be credible information...because we all know NBAdan is them most objective source on this subject...and always gets his news from credible new sources...like...BushtheSatanmustdie.com
We were there to remove Saddam and the threat to us from power...and give free rule to the Iraqis.
You are an idiot if you think good ole Saddam sitting on his billions of dollars wasn't a threat.
What makes you think they are going to be in bed with Iran?If we end up with a theocracy aligned with Iraq, what's your plan then? Another invasion?
You are an idiot if you think any new government had a plan of being hostile towards Iran.
And what makes you think ending the virtual Sunni monopoly in the mid-east is a bad idea anyway?
Haven't you noticed the terrorists attacking the Shias in Iraq?
What?Well, there was one lesson learned from Eisenhower in Vietnam.
Don't try and put in a Democracy after Truman spent millions trying to help the Frech maintain their brutal colonial rule in Indochina turning them all pro communist?
Only an idiot would think anything from that conflict applies to this one.
He already said it...he said it before the elections were held...it's no suprise to the Bush administration that Jaffari won the election. I knew of it long before...that quote from Bush came from long before.Bravo.Will he say that if the majority Shia establish a theocracy?
We aren't meddling...We are honoring their request to pull out.So we will meddle in their internal politics whan we think we can get away with it.
That's because cons utions in the middle east seldom came out of a formal process and usually came out of a halfassed attempt by the dictators put in place by Europe.And forgive my cynicism, but cons utions in the middle east have not proved to be very sacred -- we might consider ourselves lucky if the Iraqi cons ution follows the history of that of Pakistan.
Um Pakistan's problems and their fertileness for terrorist extremism are due almost entirely to having no natural resources and an inability to care for their population.If Iraq actually ends up with a security force strong enough to actually control the country, their future may play out like Pakistan's past.Your ability to completely miss the point never ceases to amaze.I've noticed their starting up their nuclear program again. Are we to invade them too?
Well if a Sunni military coup tries to take the country I imagine we will be right back over there to kick the out of them again...but I don't expect Iran will be real crazy about that idea either.But that guy will be dead in six months according to you -- what then?
If it's anyone else...they still won't be able to claim we are a colonial power...not even Sadr. We've pretty much reached civil terms with everyone but the Sunnis...and the truth is things aren't that bad with the Sunnis...the problem Sunnis are so limited in numbers, that they are actually foreigners that have to hide behind women and children remember?
And Germany...and just about all of Western Europe...IOW, just about every country we have liberated or been at War with...Except Viet Nam...who the Liberals sold to the communists along with millions of deaths.I'm just not sold that everythings going to be hunky-dory. It certainly is worth mentioning that the most successful nation-building achieved by the US was in Japan where we completely dictated the terms.
This is a different situation to be sure.
You want it to be bleak...it's not as bleak as you want...it's never been as bleak as you want it to be...especially for a ing war in which only 2000 men died in defeating an Army of nearly a million men, or the second largest active military force in the entire world, take your pick, and overthrowing one of the most entrenched dictators in the world...you terrorist sucking filth...
Last edited by whottt; 08-14-2005 at 03:16 PM.
Ah...so you don't know what the you are ing about do you?
You just want to make sure you can no matter what happens.
The men who actually make his policy for him defintely are, which is why we invaded Iraq instead of actually pusuing the terrorists.
Right...because doing nothing more than capturing Usama would have ended the threat of radical Islam and discredited him.
Look...you are too simple for this conflict...sit back and let the adults handle it...and in the meantime...why don't you go scouting for more chokers to install at our guards spots...it's what you do best.
first it was because they had WMD's
then it was because of saddam
and THEN it was to give the iraqi's freedom (it was never called operation iraqi freedom until well after it was known they had no WMD's EVER)
And everything you post is backed up with what sources? I'll take a verifiable source over the word or some hot-head anyday.
first it was because they had WMD's
then it was because of saddam
and THEN it was to give the iraqi's freedom (it was never called operation iraqi freedom until well after it was known they had no WMD's EVER)
Posted on this forum for the 9 billionth time:
"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to recons ute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002
"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Gephardt in September of 2002
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quan y to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mus gas. This agent is stored in artillery s s, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly recons ute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Cons ution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
