Bush, Cheney Concede Saddam Had No WMDs

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2004-10-08 08:44pm

Sokartawi wrote:What to do now I don't know, but a big formal apology and payment of reparations to Iraq would be a start. And do not interfere in the elections. If these people want a bunch of US-hating theocrats to lead them, then they have every right.

No. What to do now is to continue to destroy all insurgents and terrorists in country, empower the new Iraqi government, strengthening and training the Iraqi National Guard in order to facilitate their takeover of national security duties, strengthen the Iraqi infrastructure, and ensure the new government has firm control over the country and is friendly to US interests. Once that is done, the mission will be complete, and not before. IMO, any other COA spells only defeat, which is not tolerable.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-10-08 08:46pm

Strengthening Iraq to the point where it can defend itself and stand on its own is a worthy goal that we can possibly accomplish.

But turning it into a government that's friendly to US interests? Keep dreaming.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-08 08:57pm

jegs2 wrote:
Sokartawi wrote:What to do now I don't know, but a big formal apology and payment of reparations to Iraq would be a start. And do not interfere in the elections. If these people want a bunch of US-hating theocrats to lead them, then they have every right.
No. What to do now is to continue to destroy all insurgents and terrorists in country, empower the new Iraqi government, strengthening and training the Iraqi National Guard in order to facilitate their takeover of national security duties, strengthen the Iraqi infrastructure, and ensure the new government has firm control over the country and is friendly to US interests. Once that is done, the mission will be complete, and not before. IMO, any other COA spells only defeat, which is not tolerable.

I understand why you're saying this, but let me ask you this: what does the US stand to gain out of all this, apart from saving face? And is the price worth it?

mauldooku · Post by **mauldooku** » 2004-10-08 09:25pm

Darth Wong wrote:
jegs2 wrote:
Sokartawi wrote:What to do now I don't know, but a big formal apology and payment of reparations to Iraq would be a start. And do not interfere in the elections. If these people want a bunch of US-hating theocrats to lead them, then they have every right.
No. What to do now is to continue to destroy all insurgents and terrorists in country, empower the new Iraqi government, strengthening and training the Iraqi National Guard in order to facilitate their takeover of national security duties, strengthen the Iraqi infrastructure, and ensure the new government has firm control over the country and is friendly to US interests. Once that is done, the mission will be complete, and not before. IMO, any other COA spells only defeat, which is not tolerable.
I understand why you're saying this, but let me ask you this: what does the US stand to gain out of all this, apart from saving face? And is the price worth it?

A nation that, while most likely not entirely friendly to the US, will at least be better than the result of a power vacuum in such a volatile area. I've always maintained that the removal of Saddam, while done in an absolutely scandalous manner, is still an opportunity at improving innocent lives. Making lemonade out of lemons and all that jazz.

For costs? Invite the UN in, like we should've done at the start. While conceded that I have no clue how much this'll help quantitatively, I'm sure the amount would be quite large. Then again, there's the problem of convincing the UN to aid us after we basically flipped them the bird.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-10-08 09:26pm

Darth Wong wrote:I understand why you're saying this, but let me ask you this: what does the US stand to gain out of all this, apart from saving face? And is the price worth it?

Wait...you mean we're doing this NOT FOR THE OIL, KENNETH?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-08 09:28pm

Badme wrote:A nation that, while most likely not entirely friendly to the US, will at least be better than the result of a power vacuum in such a volatile area. I've always maintained that the removal of Saddam, while done in an absolutely scandalous manner, is still an opportunity at improving innocent lives. Making lemonade out of lemons and all that jazz.

Assuming that this effort succeeds.

For costs? Invite the UN in, like we should've done at the start. While conceded that I have no clue how much this'll help quantitatively, I'm sure the amount would be quite large. Then again, there's the problem of convincing the UN to aid us after we basically flipped them the bird.

Surely you must be joking. The UN has basically nothing to gain out of this, and they don't have the resources to help much anyway.

mauldooku · Post by **mauldooku** » 2004-10-08 09:39pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Badme wrote:A nation that, while most likely not entirely friendly to the US, will at least be better than the result of a power vacuum in such a volatile area. I've always maintained that the removal of Saddam, while done in an absolutely scandalous manner, is still an opportunity at improving innocent lives. Making lemonade out of lemons and all that jazz.
Assuming that this effort succeeds.

True. But it's better to make such an effort, instead of what amounts to dooming the country, correct?

For costs? Invite the UN in, like we should've done at the start. While conceded that I have no clue how much this'll help quantitatively, I'm sure the amount would be quite large. Then again, there's the problem of convincing the UN to aid us after we basically flipped them the bird.
Surely you must be joking. The UN has basically nothing to gain out of this, and they don't have the resources to help much anyway.

Sort of what I alluded to at the tail end of my comment.

Bleh. We're eating the consequences of angering our allies, and I see what you're getting at. Thanks to Bush and his Admin., we now have a situation which we'd be able to deal with if we had UN support...but thanks to the headlong rush to enter war and/or Bush's actions, we don't have that support. Ignoring the whole idea that we didn't exactly need to invade anyway.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2004-10-08 09:43pm

Darth Wong wrote:I understand why you're saying this, but let me ask you this: what does the US stand to gain out of all this, apart from saving face? And is the price worth it?

Mission accomplishment. Once we set to do something, we had better finish the job. The goals I earlier wrote seem now to be the definition of finishing the job. Unfortunately, Desert Storm likely set us up for failure by creating unrealistic expectations for modern warfare. From reports I've heard from my comrades over in Iraq, things are not nearly so bad as the news likes to paint it. We're making great headway, the Iraqi National Guard is already taking over a lot of the tasks carried out earlier only by US soldiers. One Reservist who went over to Iraq went under protest, saying he didn't believe in the mission. After a few weeks, he called his unit and said to forget everything he had earlier said -- "They need us over here," and "Don't believe any of that ____ you see on the news."

mauldooku · Post by **mauldooku** » 2004-10-08 09:48pm

jegs2 wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:I understand why you're saying this, but let me ask you this: what does the US stand to gain out of all this, apart from saving face? And is the price worth it?
Mission accomplishment. Once we set to do something, we had better finish the job. The goals I earlier wrote seem now to be the definition of finishing the job. Unfortunately, Desert Storm likely set us up for failure by creating unrealistic expectations for modern warfare. From reports I've heard from my comrades over in Iraq, things are not nearly so bad as the news likes to paint it. We're making great headway, the Iraqi National Guard is already taking over a lot of the tasks carried out earlier only by US soldiers. One Reservist who went over to Iraq went under protest, saying he didn't believe in the mission. After a few weeks, he called his unit and said to forget everything he had earlier said -- "They need us over here," and "Don't believe any of that ____ you see on the news."

What exactly are you referring to in the final quote? The many reports of insurrection? The overall hostile response to US involvement in Iraq?

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2004-10-08 09:51pm

Badme wrote:What exactly are you referring to in the final quote? The many reports of insurrection? The overall hostile response to US involvement in Iraq?

Have you been to Iraq, or are you gathering all of your information from the news, which trumpets every bad report. When is the last time you read of the construction efforts or the fact that Iraqi troops are taking over more tasks? My guess is that you didn't. I, however, am in the Army and have fellow soldiers on the ground over there who are telling me a very different story from what the mainstream media is telling you every day.

mauldooku · Post by **mauldooku** » 2004-10-08 09:53pm

jegs2 wrote:
Badme wrote:What exactly are you referring to in the final quote? The many reports of insurrection? The overall hostile response to US involvement in Iraq?
Have you been to Iraq, or are you gathering all of your information from the news, which trumpets every bad report. When is the last time you read of the construction efforts or the fact that Iraqi troops are taking over more tasks? My guess is that you didn't. I, however, am in the Army and have fellow soldiers on the ground over there who are telling me a very different story from what the mainstream media is telling you every day.

Oh, right, it's the 'I was in the Army, and therefore the entire media is biased against the invasion' argument. Sorry, that doesn't fly.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2004-10-08 09:57pm

Badme wrote:Oh, right, it's the 'I was in the Army, and therefore the entire media is biased against the invasion' argument. Sorry, that doesn't fly.

No. I am in the Army, and I am in contact with some of my fellow soldiers over there, who have no reason to lie or try to paint a rosy picture of the situation. The fact is that the media is blowing anything negative over there out of proportion, and they are not covering the "good news" stories -- likely because good news doesn't sell.

mauldooku · Post by **mauldooku** » 2004-10-08 09:59pm

jegs2 wrote:
Badme wrote:Oh, right, it's the 'I was in the Army, and therefore the entire media is biased against the invasion' argument. Sorry, that doesn't fly.
No. I am in the Army, and I am in contact with some of my fellow soldiers over there, who have no reason to lie or try to paint a rosy picture of the situation. The fact is that the media is blowing anything negative over there out of proportion, and they are not covering the "good news" stories -- likely because good news doesn't sell.

I apologize. It's now the 'I am in the army, and I talk to buddies who are in Iraq. Therefore, the entire media is biased.'

Needless to say, it isn't much of an improvement.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2004-10-08 10:00pm

Badme wrote:I apologize. It's now the 'I am in the army, and I talk to buddies who are in Iraq. Therefore, the entire media is biased.'

Needless to say, it isn't much of an improvement.

Then believe what you will.

Post by **weemadando** » 2004-10-08 10:11pm

jegs2 wrote:
Badme wrote:I apologize. It's now the 'I am in the army, and I talk to buddies who are in Iraq. Therefore, the entire media is biased.'

Needless to say, it isn't much of an improvement.
Then believe what you will.

Having talked to a few of the Aussies who were over there, sure there are good news stories, but the majority of the time they're fairly minor compared to the bad news stories of the day.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2004-10-08 10:25pm

weemadando wrote:Having talked to a few of the Aussies who were over there, sure there are good news stories, but the majority of the time they're fairly minor compared to the bad news stories of the day.

Are they still there? The information I'm getting is from folks currently over there now. To be sure, yes, attacks by insurgents are still happening, but a lot of progress just isn't being reported. Whether it's due to bias or just the fact that bad news is more sensational really doesn't matter.

Post by **weemadando** » 2004-10-08 10:57pm

jegs2 wrote:
weemadando wrote:Having talked to a few of the Aussies who were over there, sure there are good news stories, but the majority of the time they're fairly minor compared to the bad news stories of the day.
Are they still there? The information I'm getting is from folks currently over there now. To be sure, yes, attacks by insurgents are still happening, but a lot of progress just isn't being reported. Whether it's due to bias or just the fact that bad news is more sensational really doesn't matter.

These are guys who came back a couple of months back, I know of a few who are about to head over though. And from what I've seen and heard in the "less mainstream" media it seems that they're starting to turn on each other mroe than occupying forces now. Easier to try and "spoil" the elections by having people intimidated into voting for you a la Afghanistan, than trying to kick out an occupying force.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2004-10-08 11:09pm

No doubt about that -- those folks are used to strong-armed rule, as they've been under it for a long time. Setting up any semblance of a Democracy there will indeed be challenging and time-consuming.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-10-08 11:40pm

jegs2 wrote:
Badme wrote:What exactly are you referring to in the final quote? The many reports of insurrection? The overall hostile response to US involvement in Iraq?
Have you been to Iraq, or are you gathering all of your information from the news, which trumpets every bad report. When is the last time you read of the construction efforts or the fact that Iraqi troops are taking over more tasks? My guess is that you didn't. I, however, am in the Army and have fellow soldiers on the ground over there who are telling me a very different story from what the mainstream media is telling you every day.

Really so things are getting going well over there? Maybe you should get in contact with Colin Powell (you know your secretary of state) to let him know because it seems he’s been exposed to too much non “fair and balanced” media because when questioned about the insurgency recently he responded:

Colin Powell wrote:Yes it's getting worse and the reason it's getting worse is that they are determined to disrupt the election,

I must thank you Jegs I’m so glad that you and your unrivalled inside information were able to correct my naive assumption that Powell or indeed any figure in the Bush administration might ever tell the truth about anything, It would seem not only did Powell mislead the UN about WMD he also misled ABC about the way things are heading in Iraq, I’ll not make the mistake of trusting any of the Bush administration ever again.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-10-09 04:15am

jegs2 wrote:
Badme wrote:What exactly are you referring to in the final quote? The many reports of insurrection? The overall hostile response to US involvement in Iraq?
Have you been to Iraq, or are you gathering all of your information from the news, which trumpets every bad report. When is the last time you read of the construction efforts or the fact that Iraqi troops are taking over more tasks? My guess is that you didn't. I, however, am in the Army and have fellow soldiers on the ground over there who are telling me a very different story from what the mainstream media is telling you every day.

I'm sure that the Bigley family would love to hear this "different story."

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2004-10-09 04:39am

Sokartawi · Post by **Sokartawi** » 2004-10-09 05:26am

jegs2 wrote:
Sokartawi wrote:What to do now I don't know, but a big formal apology and payment of reparations to Iraq would be a start. And do not interfere in the elections. If these people want a bunch of US-hating theocrats to lead them, then they have every right.
No. What to do now is to continue to destroy all insurgents and terrorists in country, empower the new Iraqi government, strengthening and training the Iraqi National Guard in order to facilitate their takeover of national security duties, strengthen the Iraqi infrastructure, and ensure the new government has firm control over the country and is friendly to US interests. Once that is done, the mission will be complete, and not before. IMO, any other COA spells only defeat, which is not tolerable.

If I had to choose between those 'insurgents and terrorists' and the US in there, I'd pick sides for the insurgents (freedom fighters IMO) without hesitations. It's THEIR country, not yours, and you are an illegal invasion force, which even fits in the definition of terrorist. This temporary government are not much more then a bunch traitors who deserve to be shot.

mauldooku · Post by **mauldooku** » 2004-10-09 05:32am

Sokartawi wrote:
jegs2 wrote:
Sokartawi wrote:What to do now I don't know, but a big formal apology and payment of reparations to Iraq would be a start. And do not interfere in the elections. If these people want a bunch of US-hating theocrats to lead them, then they have every right.
No. What to do now is to continue to destroy all insurgents and terrorists in country, empower the new Iraqi government, strengthening and training the Iraqi National Guard in order to facilitate their takeover of national security duties, strengthen the Iraqi infrastructure, and ensure the new government has firm control over the country and is friendly to US interests. Once that is done, the mission will be complete, and not before. IMO, any other COA spells only defeat, which is not tolerable.
If I had to choose between those 'insurgents and terrorists' and the US in there, I'd pick sides for the insurgents (freedom fighters IMO) without hesitations. It's THEIR country, not yours, and you are an illegal invasion force, which even fits in the definition of terrorist. This temporary government are not much more then a bunch traitors who deserve to be shot.

Why? So that said insurgents can establish a fundamentalist Islamic regime, as opposed to a (somewhat) democratic one that we're trying to implement?

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-10-09 05:36am

Sokartawi wrote:
jegs2 wrote:No. What to do now is to continue to destroy all insurgents and terrorists in country, empower the new Iraqi government, strengthening and training the Iraqi National Guard in order to facilitate their takeover of national security duties, strengthen the Iraqi infrastructure, and ensure the new government has firm control over the country and is friendly to US interests. Once that is done, the mission will be complete, and not before. IMO, any other COA spells only defeat, which is not tolerable.
If I had to choose between those 'insurgents and terrorists' and the US in there, I'd pick sides for the insurgents (freedom fighters IMO) without hesitations. It's THEIR country, not yours, and you are an illegal invasion force, which even fits in the definition of terrorist. This temporary government are not much more then a bunch traitors who deserve to be shot.

You will surely provide an argument to support this assertion.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2004-10-09 06:08am

MKSheppard wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:I understand why you're saying this, but let me ask you this: what does the US stand to gain out of all this, apart from saving face? And is the price worth it?
Wait...you mean we're doing this NOT FOR THE OIL, KENNETH?

I figured it was always corporate welfare at the expence of the American taxpayers and thousands of Iraqi dead.