What is this world coming to!?!?

[nkb]

Not at all. Conservatives are human too and tell their share of convenient lies. But here I am speaking specifically about the situation in Iraq.

I see no reason to believe that we are getting the truth from the Bush administration, since they have been proven to manipulate numbers.

Answer this to yourself, if things really were going badly in Iraq, do you think an incumbent government would let you know on the eve of elections (and this has nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats, it is just a fact of life that politicians will spin anything to their advantage)?

Who do you think is distorting the truth more? What does common sense tell you about the inherent difficulty of regime change in Iraq?

Is Kerry's campaign being alarmist? I'm sure they are. Are things going well in Iraq? Not at all. And I am making that assesment based on increasing casualties, increasing bombings, and the general unpreparedness of Iraqis to handle some of their own security. I understand that a significant part of the insurgency is not even Iraqis, but that is something that even a two-bit analyst should have been able to predict, and should have been planned for. Was the Iraq war well-prepared? I don't think so. Was it ill-timed, with significant forces needed to finish the job in Afghanistan? I think so.

I have yet to hear the Bush administration admit that they made any mistakes. The only mention of it was a back-door acknowledgment that they did not foresee the strength of the post-invasion insurgency (by Bush himself during the first debate).

Do I think Kerry will do better? I'm not sure he can, given the current situation, and some of his plans seem pretty optimistic. Will he do worse? Probably not.

To answer your question, common sense tells me that we bit off more than we could chew. Invading Iraq so quickly after Afghanistan was not prudent. Again, analysts should have been able to predict the difficulty of being an occupying force in a hostile area, and backed off. It is my opinion that we are in Iraq because Bush/Cheney had targeted Hussein a long time ago, and not because of any imminent danger (as was proven, in hindsight).

 

[nsxr1]

Answer this to yourself, if things really were going badly in Iraq, do you think an incumbent government would let you know on the eve of elections (and this has nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats, it is just a fact of life that politicians will spin anything to their advantage)?)

Of course I would expect the Bush administration to paint the rosiest picture possible. Let's just say I find their "spin" more credible than the Kerry "spin". And I am not basing my views on Iraq solely on Republican talking points. If you had asked me before the invasion began to predict what the situation would be a year and a half later, I would have described a scenario similar to the one we see today. I certainly would have predicted many more coalition casualties. Democratization of Iraq has never been a matter of one or two years and we're out clean. It is a long, gradual process and you have to be far-sighted about it. Pretty much everyone understood this going in, including most of the Democrats who are now doing all the finger pointing.

I understand that a significant part of the insurgency is not even Iraqis, but that is something that even a two-bit analyst should have been able to predict, and should have been planned for. Was the Iraq war well-prepared? I don't think so. Was it ill-timed, with significant forces needed to finish the job in Afghanistan? I think so.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. How exactly were we poorly prepared? I have yet to hear specific examples from any of the critics. As I always say, one of the easiest things in the world to do is to find fault with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. Many things that may seem obvious now were not so obvious before the fact. And intelligence agency failures notwithstanding, the analysts who generated the intelligence reports upon which Bush's decisions were made are collectively a far cry from "two-bit".

And on what basis do you conclude that the job in Afghanistan was not finished? I'm sure you must realize that an interim Afghan government has been recognized and functioning for some time now, and that the first-ever Afghan free elections were just held last week? The Taliban has been thoroughly dismantled, and terrorist attacks there are sporadic. Sounds pretty good to me so far.

Do I think Kerry will do better? I'm not sure he can, given the current situation, and some of his plans seem pretty optimistic. Will he do worse? Probably not.

Plans? What plans? Kerry has yet to articulate anything specific and meaningful that he would have done differently in Iraq or that he would do in the future. He says that he would have used force in Iraq "in the right way", which is like saying nothing at all. He says that he would have given diplomacy a chance to work - as if 12 years of futile diplomacy are not enough. He says that he would double the number of US troops - the type of decision that should be made by military commanders not politicians (see Vietnam). He says that he would bring in French, German and Russian troops to help - not a chance, and even if he could only the Russian troops might prove helpful. He says that he would train Iraqi troops - no different than what is being done now. Add to this that few in Washington have less credibility or a weaker voting record on defense matters than Senator Kerry, and I don't believe for a minute that he would or even could do a better job in Iraq than Bush.[/QUOTE]

To answer your question, common sense tells me that we bit off more than we could chew. Invading Iraq so quickly after Afghanistan was not prudent. Again, analysts should have been able to predict the difficulty of being an occupying force in a hostile area, and backed off. It is my opinion that we are in Iraq because Bush/Cheney had targeted Hussein a long time ago, and not because of any imminent danger (as was proven, in hindsight).

For 12 years Hussein refused to allow unfettered access to UN weapons inspectors. He refused to permit independent verification of the destruction/dismantling of weapons and weapons facilities that we knew he had. That left us to either assume that he still posed an imminent threat (smart) or assume that he no longer posed an imminent threat (not smart).

In my opinion the situation in Iraq does not indicate that we bit off more than we can chew. Far from it. We destroyed an entrenched regime in record time, and it was long overdue. What we see happening now is nothing more than the desperation and panic of Islamic fundamentalist extremists throughout the Middle East - crude, sporadic attacks and bombings that the terrorists can only hope will intimidate and discourage the Iraqi population. A free Iraq is evidently a nightmare scenario for them, which indicates to me that it is definitely worth the effort.

 

[nkb]

Of course I would expect the Bush administration to paint the rosiest picture possible. Let's just say I find their "spin" more credible than the Kerry "spin".

If it was just Bush spin against Kerry spin, you might have a valid argument. However, the negative "spin" is also coming from people like L. Paul Bremer, the former administrator in Iraq. Yesterday, I read an article in the Dallas Morning News about interviews with Marines who are becoming increasingly disenchanted and frustrated, because the progress that is being reported is not being seen by them.

And I am not basing my views on Iraq solely on Republican talking points. If you had asked me before the invasion began to predict what the situation would be a year and a half later, I would have described a scenario similar to the one we see today. I certainly would have predicted many more coalition casualties. Democratization of Iraq has never been a matter of one or two years and we're out clean. It is a long, gradual process and you have to be far-sighted about it. Pretty much everyone understood this going in, including most of the Democrats who are now doing all the finger pointing.

I think that is part of the rub. The government was not talking about an extended war, or an occupation of Iraq. I disagree that everyone understood this. If the administration had laid out a multi-year occupation plan, they would have had trouble getting support from Congress.

How exactly were we poorly prepared? I have yet to hear specific examples from any of the critics.

Well, as I mentioned above, Bremer says we are paying the consequences for not having committed enough troops. General Shinseki, the former Army chief of staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in Feb of 2003 that we needed "something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers" for an occupation of Iraq.

And on what basis do you conclude that the job in Afghanistan was not finished? I'm sure you must realize that an interim Afghan government has been recognized and functioning for some time now, and that the first-ever Afghan free elections were just held last week? The Taliban has been thoroughly dismantled, and terrorist attacks there are sporadic. Sounds pretty good to me so far.

Well, the fact that Osama bin-Laden is still unaccounted for tells me the job is not yet finished. There are still significant parts of the country that are unsafe to travel. I am reserving judgement on the elections, as there are some questions and issues that have been raised.

Add to this that few in Washington have less credibility or a weaker voting record on defense matters than Senator Kerry, and I don't believe for a minute that he would or even could do a better job in Iraq than Bush.

And now you are guilty of repeating unfounded Republican propaganda. Statements like these make me think that you are not as objective as you claim, and that sometimes you don't try to research both sides of an argument. Please read this non-partisan analysis of Kerry's voting record on defense: http://www.factcheck.org/article252.html

 

[Eric5273]

Talk to any soldier returning from that region and I would bet that he/she would describe an Iraqi scenario far less dire than that portrayed by commercial "news" organizations.

I have spoken to 2 people who have returned from Iraq, one being there more than a year, and both of them described the situation far different from what is portrayed by the American Media. Their description was more similar to that you would view on Al-Jazeera.

 

[Eric5273]

Wow.....after reading this thread, there is just so much misinformation here.

First of all, "foreign fighters", "islamic extremists", "terrorists", etc. are NOT the ones causing problems for our troops in Iraq. Those of you who believe this are probably the same ones who believed there were WMDs, and you are also the ones who will believe each and every lie that comes out of the government's mouth.

The "rebels" (yes, that is what they are) who are fighting against us are regular Iraqi citizens who are fighting for the freedom of their country against an occupying force and their puppet government. They are no different than the Viet Cong fighting against US forces in South Vietnam and their puppet government in Saigon, or even the French rebels fighting against the Vichi government and the Germans in WWII.

The average American citizen's viewpoint has become so far to the right, that you think even moderately pro-American viewpoints are anti-American. NO American news source is anti-American. They are ALL pro-American. Just some more so than others. Some like Fox News are living in la-la land, while others like CBS are only somwhat bias.

If you think this sounds absurd, then I challenge you to find any war in history not involving the United States, where a news source from one of the involved countries was bias towards the other side.

If in 1946 a German newspaper reported that 100,000 jews had been killed during the Holocaust, would you consider that newspaper to be pro-Nazi or anti-Nazi?? Most pro-Nazi German citizens would have said this source was bias against the Nazis since these people did not believe the Holocaust even happened. Well, those of you who are buying into all this propoganda are no different. Wake up!!

If you want an unbiased news source on the war, then read a newspaper from a neutral country -- one that is NOT involved in this war. But I would imagine that if you believe that our own news sources are anti-American, then you also think that the rest of the world is as well. It must suck to be so paranoid.

 

[Eric5273]

Zarqawi Is Not In Fallujah, Nor Has He Ever Been There

Mark Twain said there are “Lies, Damn Lies and then Statistics,”; allow me to add another, Bush’s lies.

Every Arab linguist who has listened to the alleged voice of Zarqawi has made this person does not have a Jordanian accent; thus, it is not the real Zarqawi.

So, what’s going on? Here it is, flat out, and the American military commanders know it.

Just last week, U.S. Military Intelligence reported that Zarqawi wasn’t in, and probably never had been in, Fallujah. Nevertheless, the Bush administration and the U.S. media keep putting out the lie that he’s there. This gives the U.S. an excuse to terrorize the people of Fallujah, just as Saddam would terrorize the Kurds and Shi’a, and Israel is terrorizing the Palestinians. It’s all the same scenario—make up a good story, then keep retelling it until everyone believes it—straight out of MEIN KAMP by Adolph Hitler.

Last week, not only did dozens of people die, but for extra measure, the U.S. “precision bombing” took out a popular kebab restaurant because allegedly, “Zarqawi was meeting people there.” This was an out and out lie; not only the owner but many customers were enraged because all that were in the restaurant were people from Fallujah—not Zarqawi.

Also, the citizens of Fallujah have taken control of their own town, but the U.S. keeps saying that “terrorists” have control of the town. And no less than the U.S. puppet, Allawi has demanded that the Fallujahns turn over Zarqawi or he’ll level the town.
BUT, HOW CAN THEY TURN OVER ZARQAWI IF HE’S NOT THERE? This is a double negative for the people, you can’t prove that which is not true. But, this will give Allawi’s cronies and the U.S. military an excuse to go in and kill more of the people of Fallujah.