[quote]Jeff R wrote:
By the way, sloth, what was the alternative to the Iraq War?
You are Bush in 2003, what do you do?
[/quote]
Not go to war with Iraq.
[quote]Jeff R wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Jeff R wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I stayed home because the GoP has become the biggest threat to conservatism. So, I really didn’t have much choice. In fact, I now cringe every time someone uses ‘conservative’ and ‘Republican’ interchangeabley. The Democrats are who they are, a foe of conservatism. You know where they stand.
But, the Republicans are associated with Conservatism in most people’s mind. And boy, did they ever destroyed the hell out of that brand. Republicans got Obama into the White House, not me. You know who should despise Bush and the GoP the most? Democrats? Nope. Conservatives.
Sloth,
That’s fine if it happened in a vacuum. Or, if the alternative wasn’t so incredibly toxic and dangerous.
What you, and others like you, have done is handed the election to a socialist.
That, in my humble opinion, is far more dangerous than a guy like McCain.
JeffR
Nope. Those that kept up their support for Bush, and the Iraq war, handed this election over. And, as a nice little gift wrapped present for the Dems, the GoP’s performance now has Conservatism associated with big government spending, democracy crusades, overextended military, paying mere lip service to immigration issues, etc.
And, I think your focus on us, only proves my point. The GoP can always rely on it’s “Well, still, we’re not as bad as the other guys…” No, they’re not. They’re worse. After all, they’re the ones who can (and may already have} forever destroy conservatism as a responsible and prudent force for governance. Save conservatism, if it can be saved. Don’t vote GoP.
By the way, sloth, what was the alternative to the Iraq War?
You are Bush in 2003, what do you do?
[/quote]
Nothing.
Absolutely nothing.
But put up a hell of a PR show that looks like I am doing something.
And of course let Saddam phone me weekly, to report whether he has been a good boy or not, moving the country in the direction I deem desirable.
[quote]pat wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I stayed home because the GoP has become the biggest threat to conservatism. So, I really didn’t have much choice. In fact, I now cringe every time someone uses ‘conservative’ and ‘Republican’ interchangeabley. The Democrats are who they are, a foe of conservatism. You know where they stand.
But, the Republicans are associated with Conservatism in most people’s mind. And boy, did they ever destroyed the hell out of that brand. Republicans got Obama into the White House, not me. You know who should despise Bush and the GoP the most? Democrats? Nope. Conservatives.
I get what you are saying, but I’d rather have a half-assed conservative than a socialist pig who things the most inefficient entity on earth, governement, has all the answers.
[/quote]
Ah, but your not looking at the long term. What’s more likely to get our party back? To continue to vote for them as they become more liberal, or send them a message by not voting for them. If every Conservative upset with the Republican party voted Libertarian, the message would be loud and clear.
The cost of overthrowing Saddam – I refer only to that task of achieving the immediate victory – was nothing unreasonable.
It also had the benefit of giving Khadaffi shit fits and having him give up his nuclear program.
The problem, in retrospect, was the further goal of turning Iraq into a light for the Arab world and a moderate democracy.
While this was a noble goal, compared to leaving the Baath Party in charge and allowing the Iraqi Army to remain intact, that latter less-noble course would have cost far less and would still have accomplished the anti-WMD and don’t-tread-on-us, this-is-what-happens-if-you-do goals. That I think was the fundamental error, rather than per se overthrowing Saddam.
However, that second course would have failed to kill the roughly 50,000 terrorists that the actual course of action succeeded in killing. We can never know what would have happened had Al-Qaeda and other terror groups not had to devote so much of their effort to Iraq. So even at this point saying that it was a mistake to not just leave Iraq to the Baath Party is fundamentally a statement of unknowable correctness, as we do not know what the alternate outcome “would” have been.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
The cost of overthrowing Saddam – I refer only to that task of achieving the immediate victory – was nothing unreasonable.
It also had the benefit of giving Khadaffi shit fits and having him give up his nuclear program.
The problem, in retrospect, was the further goal of turning Iraq into a light for the Arab world and a moderate democracy.
While this was a noble goal, compared to leaving the Baath Party in charge and allowing the Iraqi Army to remain intact, that latter less-noble course would have cost far less and would still have accomplished the anti-WMD and don’t-tread-on-us, this-is-what-happens-if-you-do goals. That I think was the fundamental error, rather than per se overthrowing Saddam.
However, that second course would have failed to kill the roughly 50,000 terrorists that the actual course of action succeeded in killing. We can never know what would have happened had Al-Qaeda and other terror groups not had to devote so much of their effort to Iraq. So even at this point saying that it was a mistake to not just leave Iraq to the Baath Party is fundamentally a statement of unknowable correctness, as we do not know what the alternate outcome “would” have been.[/quote]
While it is true that you never know what would have happened “if”, I find it very hard to believe that the money that went ,and will go into, that little adventure could not not have been spent more productively.
How about if any significant fraction of the resulting-dead terrorists had instead been devoted to major attacks within the US?
Fighting the US in Iraq was an enormous drain on the resource of Al-Qaeda and similar anti-US terror groups. It is not as if their resources and capabilities are so vast that this was only a negligible portion of their capability and thus did not significantly extend them and reduce their ability to make other trouble elsewhere.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
How about if any significant fraction of the resulting-dead terrorists had instead been devoted to major attacks within the US?
Fighting the US in Iraq was an enormous drain on the resource of Al-Qaeda and similar anti-US terror groups. It is not as if their resources and capabilities are so vast that this was only a negligible portion of their capability and thus did not significantly extend them and reduce their ability to make other trouble elsewhere.[/quote]
Historically when we go into nation building the CIA is a little more prepared on the political front. It just seemed there was no clear political plan after overthrowing the controlling party. They should have been working with the different tribes and factions long before going in. Or atleast had some sense of what the aftermath would look like.
We are not likely to know the real story for quite some time but to me it looked like a clear cut example of the CIA fucking up big time…again. I haven’t seen any evidense of the CIA knowing their head from their ass in the middle east. To me, this is a big problem for any president.
Should we have gone in? Probably. Could a retard have planned it better? Probably.
The CIA used to be allowed to have actual OPERATIVES in numerous foreign countries around the world! Imagine that! Mr Clinton brought an end to that, however.
Agreed on your points, though – just noting a practical impediment that was faced.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
How about if any significant fraction of the resulting-dead terrorists had instead been devoted to major attacks within the US?
Fighting the US in Iraq was an enormous drain on the resource of Al-Qaeda and similar anti-US terror groups. It is not as if their resources and capabilities are so vast that this was only a negligible portion of their capability and thus did not significantly extend them and reduce their ability to make other trouble elsewhere.[/quote]
Seems to me they kept us busy in Iraq, making us look pretty silly in Afghanistan. And, managed to destroy a political party in the process, us getting a President instead who opposed the democracy tour and promising to get us the hell out.
Are they, Al Qaeda, falling apart? Are they on their last leg? Is Afghanistan and Pakistan nearly made over into whatever image we had in mind?
An overextended military, loss of prestige in the world’s eyes, soaring spending and borrowing just to continue our wars, a deeply divided country, the smouldering ruins of one party, and depending on what Obama does about Afghanistan (and by extenstion, Pahk-ee-stahn) possibly another hurting party in the future…
I am not familiar with what specifically Clinton did to the CIA. My knowledge of the CIA gets a bit fuzzy after GHWB.
My sense is that they have turned into a political bureaucracy like any other gov’t agency. This started long ago, and really put an effective clandestine service. There were always fuck ups and field offices that did what they felt like doing, but now they are almost completely worthless.
They should be the most powerful weapon we have but instead we have all but neutered them.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
How about if any significant fraction of the resulting-dead terrorists had instead been devoted to major attacks within the US?
Fighting the US in Iraq was an enormous drain on the resource of Al-Qaeda and similar anti-US terror groups. It is not as if their resources and capabilities are so vast that this was only a negligible portion of their capability and thus did not significantly extend them and reduce their ability to make other trouble elsewhere.
Seems to me they kept us busy in Iraq, making us look pretty silly in Afghanistan. And, managed to destroy a political party in the process, us getting a President instead who opposed the democracy tour and promising to get us the hell out.
Are they, Al Qaeda, falling apart? Are they on their last leg? Is Afghanistan and Pakistan nearly made over into whatever image we had in mind? [/quote]
So, do you think that while the US military, as large as it is, was greatly extended or even overextended by the fight in Iraq, in contrast Al-Qaeda’s resources were so mighty that it was a drop in the bucket to them?
And thus stupid or mistaken to argue that fighting on that front reduced, probably greatly reduced, their ability to wage their war on America in other ways?
Is it just because they felt like playing nice that we did not have a terror attack on US soil in the period they were having to fight US in Iraq and Afghanistan?
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
How about if any significant fraction of the resulting-dead terrorists had instead been devoted to major attacks within the US?
Fighting the US in Iraq was an enormous drain on the resource of Al-Qaeda and similar anti-US terror groups. It is not as if their resources and capabilities are so vast that this was only a negligible portion of their capability and thus did not significantly extend them and reduce their ability to make other trouble elsewhere.[/quote]
Now that is “what-ifing” on your part.
But let me “what-if” with you.
Who knows how much of this “terrorists” would have been contend with parading once or twice a year and burning an effigy of the POTUS or a flag or two had the US not invaded their country?
I mean you must realize that the invasion in and of itself made you enemies. How many? Less “terrorists” than you have killed? The same number? Maybe more? Much more? How can you ever be sure? What if the son of someone you have terminally eliminated as a thread will be the first to launch a successful biological attack on the US?
Just think about it, all it takes is one Iraqi kid that is about as smart as you in an area of expertise that is only slightly different from yours. How much damage could you do if you wanted to, properly motivated?
So if we are “what-ifing”, what if you had spend the money at home and let the chips fall were they would have fallen?
This way life would have sucked for Arabs too, but they would not have you to blame. And maybe, just maybe they could start to realize that they themselves are their worst enemies.
Let’s see:
Did Al-Qaeda need the war in Iraq, or Afghanistan, to motivate them for 9/11?
So why do you think they would need those wars to have motivated them for further terror attacks on US soil?
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
So, do you think that while the US military, as large as it is, was greatly extended or even overextended by the fight in Iraq, in contrast Al-Qaeda’s resources were so mighty that it was a drop in the bucket to them, and thus stupid or mistaken to argue that fighting on that front reduced, probably greatly reduced, their ability to wage their war on America in other ways?[/quote]
How do you overextend an organization that isn’t going to attack the US as a combined army, using expensive military equipment? Do they have entitlements to pay for? Banks to rescue? Deficits to explain away to constituents? A populace with the option of voting them out of office?
When they’e ready, maybe a dozen guys already here, or waiting to slip over our border, will carry out an attack that doesn’t require costly precision guided missiles and armored vehicles.
Hell, they don’t even have to attack us here anymore! That’s their victory in all of this. They can damage us politically, fiscally, and physically without having to activate one single cell in the US. How many lives, and how much have they cost us in Iraq? In chasing them back and forth over the Pahk-ee-stahn border? And again, a deeply divided country with one party already bloodied to hell and back.
Don’t think this is the case? Look at what happened to not Bush, but the Republicans. Smacked down. Hard.
Gee, I guess you are right, the tens of thousands of them actively, full-time, fighting over there wouldn’t POSSIBLY be doing anything else against the US with their time if they did not have that to do.
You’re completely right, there’s no way the US military could possibly be tying up their time and resources. Silly of me not to see that.
[quote]orion wrote:
Jeff R wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Jeff R wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I stayed home because the GoP has become the biggest threat to conservatism. So, I really didn’t have much choice. In fact, I now cringe every time someone uses ‘conservative’ and ‘Republican’ interchangeabley. The Democrats are who they are, a foe of conservatism. You know where they stand.
But, the Republicans are associated with Conservatism in most people’s mind. And boy, did they ever destroyed the hell out of that brand. Republicans got Obama into the White House, not me. You know who should despise Bush and the GoP the most? Democrats? Nope. Conservatives.
Sloth,
That’s fine if it happened in a vacuum. Or, if the alternative wasn’t so incredibly toxic and dangerous.
What you, and others like you, have done is handed the election to a socialist.
That, in my humble opinion, is far more dangerous than a guy like McCain.
JeffR
Nope. Those that kept up their support for Bush, and the Iraq war, handed this election over. And, as a nice little gift wrapped present for the Dems, the GoP’s performance now has Conservatism associated with big government spending, democracy crusades, overextended military, paying mere lip service to immigration issues, etc.
And, I think your focus on us, only proves my point. The GoP can always rely on it’s “Well, still, we’re not as bad as the other guys…” No, they’re not. They’re worse. After all, they’re the ones who can (and may already have} forever destroy conservatism as a responsible and prudent force for governance. Save conservatism, if it can be saved. Don’t vote GoP.
By the way, sloth, what was the alternative to the Iraq War?
You are Bush in 2003, what do you do?
Nothing.
Absolutely nothing.
But put up a hell of a PR show that looks like I am doing something.
And of course let Saddam phone me weekly, to report whether he has been a good boy or not, moving the country in the direction I deem desirable.
[/quote]
That’s incredibly lazy. Honestly, sloth, in your heart of hearts (especially given the undeclared weaponry/ties to terrorism that the U.S. discovered/documented) do you really believe that, once we made it clear he could violate the cease fire with impunity, he wouldn’t have burned our ass in some way?
Maybe even in a catastrophic way?
What’s the cost of a chemical/biological/nuclear attack even through proxy?
What would the cost have been in Iraqi life had the U.S. done nothing?
How many million of his own did he kill since coming to power?
I just sincerely believe that the cost, while awful in both U.S. and Iraqi lives, would have been less than doing nothing.
JeffR
P.S. You have noticed the major breakthroughs in that democracy, right?
P.P.S. Pretty unique to that area, wouldn’t you say?
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Gee, I guess you are right, the tens of thousands of them actively, full-time, fighting over there wouldn’t POSSIBLY be doing anything else against the US with their time if they did not have that to do.
You’re completely right, there’s no way the US military could possibly be tying up their time and resources. Silly of me not to see that.[/quote]
Analysts: Al-Qaeda back to pre-9/11 strength
WASHINGTON (AP) ? A new threat assessment from U.S. counterterrorism analysts says that al-Qaeda has used its safe haven along the Afghan-Pakistan border to restore its operating capabilities to a level unseen since the months before Sept. 11, 2001
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Let’s see:
Did Al-Qaeda need the war in Iraq, or Afghanistan, to motivate them for 9/11?
So why do you think they would need those wars to have motivated them for further terror attacks on US soil?[/quote]
So you are saying, having already shit in their skillet, what does it matter when you kill their wives and burn their houses down?
Or kill half of their extended families when blowing up a wedding party? Hmmmm, each wedding involves a clan or two, I wonder how big a family gets before it is a “clan” and I also wonder how people who live in “clans” react to such things.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
So, do you think that while the US military, as large as it is, was greatly extended or even overextended by the fight in Iraq, in contrast Al-Qaeda’s resources were so mighty that it was a drop in the bucket to them, and thus stupid or mistaken to argue that fighting on that front reduced, probably greatly reduced, their ability to wage their war on America in other ways?
How do you overextend an organization that isn’t going to attack the US as a combined army, using expensive military equipment? Do they have entitlements to pay for? Banks to rescue? Deficits to explain away to constituents? A populace with the option of voting them out of office?
When they’e ready, maybe a dozen guys already here, or waiting to slip over our border, will carry out an attack that doesn’t require costly precision guided missiles and armored vehicles.
Hell, they don’t even have to attack us here anymore! That’s their victory in all of this. They can damage us politically, fiscally, and physically without having to activate one single cell in the US. How many lives, and how much have they cost us in Iraq? In chasing them back and forth over the Pahk-ee-stahn border? And again, a deeply divided country with one party already bloodied to hell and back.
Don’t think this is the case? Look at what happened to not Bush, but the Republicans. Smacked down. Hard. [/quote]
Oh, so al qaeda won?
Therefore, obama?
You might want to think this through. Especially in the context of you not voting for McCain in “protest.”
Bush could have managed his party much better and made 2006 and 2008 much less painful for the Republicans.
[quote]orion wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Let’s see:
Did Al-Qaeda need the war in Iraq, or Afghanistan, to motivate them for 9/11?
So why do you think they would need those wars to have motivated them for further terror attacks on US soil?
So you are saying, having already shit in their skillet, what does it matter when you kill their wives and burn their houses down?
Or kill half of their extended families when blowing up a wedding party? Hmmmm, each wedding involves a clan or two, I wonder how big a family gets before it is a “clan” and I also wonder how people who live in “clans” react to such things.[/quote]
Well, I have provided a possible explanation for why no terror attacks on US soil since 2001 – their efforts have been tied up elsewhere, tens of thousands of them being devoted to fighting the US Army outside the US.
You reject that explanation.
Is it unreasonable of me to ask you to provide your own?
What is it? That Al-Qaeda just lost interest?
But how would that square with your argument that we are inciting terrorism so badly by fighting them in the Middle East? If we are, then that should hardly have dampened Al-Qaeda’s interest.
And they had enough interest to do it pre-9/11. So what is your explanation?
As for the dead terrorists and those who allowed them in their immediate proximity and got killed: Boo-hoo
(I do feel sorry for those who did not agree to have the terrorists in their proximity and got killed, but that cannot be a reason making the terrorists untouchable.)