• Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
New posts

Chickpea

Beach Fanatic
Dec 15, 2005
1,151
366
30-A Corridor
There has never been any substantial link between Bin laden and Hussein.

We've been sparing interested Middle East parties much more than travel expenses, they won the megamillions now with us in Iraq, after already winning the Lotto with relations with our country.

Friedmans article states the admin didn't have sufficient knowledge regarding Al-Qaeda. The GW admin had knowledge, just didn't pay any attention to it prior to 9/11. Our government knew back in the mid 1990's that Al-Qaeda was interested in using airplanes as weapons targeting the The White House and various Federal Buildings. At the 9/11 hearings, many questions went unanswered, like the CIA's knowledge of 2 of the highjackers in the US and lack of surveillance.

Although I agree in part with with UT regarding energy supplies being a priority so that we can extricate ourselves from the Middle East, (the main cause for such dissention is our involvement to protect our energy interests)

I am sure that the victims families of 9/11, would agree that we should have taken our national security more seriously pre-9/11, and should continue to do so, since there will always be some political turmoil somewhere in the future where the US will most likely intervene, and we won;t be able to to totally eradicate Al-Qaeda and other emerging terrorist groups. They are not going to easily forget what we have done, regardless of whether we pulled out of Iraq tomorrow.

Mango,

You and Uncle Timmy and others are absolutely right about pre-war intelligence.

I want to absolutely SCREAM when I hear or read people say that hindsight is 50-50 and so much of the chaos there reigns there now could NOT have been anticipated - well, exxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxcuse me - there were PLENTY of people who predicted that this war would bring about escalation in violence, have possibility of destabilizing oil market and actually make us all less safe (so much for so called war on terrorism!) but all those reports were squashed, ignored and edited!

Thanks and Happy Easter!
 

30A Skunkape

Skunky
Jan 18, 2006
10,323
2,353
55
Backatown Seagrove
Mango,

You and Uncle Timmy and others are absolutely right about pre-war intelligence.

I want to absolutely SCREAM when I hear or read people say that hindsight is 50-50 and so much of the chaos there reigns there now could NOT have been anticipated - well, exxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxcuse me - there were PLENTY of people who predicted that this war would bring about escalation in violence, have possibility of destabilizing oil market and actually make us all less safe (so much for so called war on terrorism!) but all those reports were squashed, ignored and edited!

Thanks and Happy Easter!

Hindsight is usually 20/20. Whenever the budding experts on international affairs on here tire of rehashing the obvious, what I would like to know is, what do we do now? Please be specific, and feel free to forward your ideas to the 2008 candidates...I looked at most of the major players websites yesterday on both sides of the aisle, and other than Kucinich (ok, not a major player but a fun read) and McCain, the others are pretty vague.

Happy Easter wishes all around from chilly, damp New Orleans.:D
 
lol John R

No doubt the prognostication and rhetoric palls some, but many of us were against the war from Day 1 and it's not so much 20-20 hindsight as it is grim recognition. I don't think anyone is high-fiving each other with joy over this.
Kucinich (who also was against this unwinnable war from the beginning) has some ideas that sound good to me, if the UN would cooperate. Hillary Clinton came up with a proposal which would leave some troops there. The Senate is working on a provision to the funding for the war, but we do not know if the President will veto it.
If we pull everybody out now, or at least within a year (which is what I would like to see) will Iraq implode with sectarian fighting, and fall upon itself like a bunch of dominoes?
Well, it's likely. But the status quo does not look good.
Iraqis are dying, and our young people are dying, but progress is still eluding us.
Much has been said about concentrating on the borders, in terms of keeping the instability from spreading. I dunno.
I do not have any concrete answers. What I hope for is to reduce our presence there, work towards global reconciliation, and, with the UN's help, build an international peacekeeping force.
 

Bob

SoWal Insider
Nov 16, 2004
10,366
1,391
O'Wal
Hindsight is usually 20/20. Whenever the budding experts on international affairs on here tire of rehashing the obvious, what I would like to know is, what do we do now? Please be specific, and feel free to forward your ideas to the 2008 candidates...I looked at most of the major players websites yesterday on both sides of the aisle, and other than Kucinich (ok, not a major player but a fun read) and McCain, the others are pretty vague.

Happy Easter wishes all around from chilly, damp New Orleans.:D
You may not have been around, but Bush Sr. didn't send the Army up to Baghdad in the first Gulf War, because the prevailing wisdom was Iraq would be destabilized like the Balkans. It was openly discussed in the media. Regarding Bush Sr., he was merely following the Carter Doctrine which was, in effect, don't mess with the Persian Gulf. These were two wise Presidents. Regarding what we do now, see Korea. We're stuck! Like that option?? Another angry redneck President put us in that fight too! Remember the Truman Doctrine from history class? Reads like neo-con playbook, just substitute terrorists for communists. We will fight communists/terrorists anywhere in the world. 50 year stalemate in Korea, Vietnam War, and now we are set up for a lengthy stay in Oilville, the lie being we were fighting terrorists, and promoting democracy.
 

30A Skunkape

Skunky
Jan 18, 2006
10,323
2,353
55
Backatown Seagrove
You may not have been around, but Bush Sr. didn't send the Army up to Baghdad in the first Gulf War, because the prevailing wisdom was Iraq would be destabilized like the Balkans. It was openly discussed in the media. Regarding Bush Sr., he was merely following the Carter Doctrine which was, in effect, don't mess with the Persian Gulf. These were two wise Presidents. Regarding what we do now, see Korea. We're stuck! Like that option?? Another angry redneck President put us in that fight too! Remember the Truman Doctrine from history class? Reads like neo-con playbook, just substitute terrorists for communists. We will fight communists/terrorists anywhere in the world. 50 year stalemate in Korea, Vietnam War, and now we are set up for a lengthy stay in Oilville, the lie being we were fighting terrorists, and promoting democracy.

So what do we do (aside from ditching our cars in favor of bicycles and such, of course)?
 

30gAy

Beach Fanatic
Jul 4, 2006
417
0
The greater SoWal metro area
I'm headed out for cocktails, dinner and cocktails. You all keep high fiving each other like you do at the frisbee golf tournaments and love-ins and I'll try to get around to decimating your moonbat arguments after Easter.

Yes, drink until you feel you are 'brilliant'.

Why do I have the feeling that your idea of decimating is going to be characterized by

1) Reminding us of your 'brilliance'
2) Lobbing insults at others

...all capped off with a poorly written diatribe speckled with vague and completely irrelevant cultural and historical references.

That isn't so much the sound of high-fives you hear but folks slapping their foreheads in amazement at watching someone's ego write checks his intelligence can't cash.

By all means, surprise me.
 

Mango

SoWal Insider
Apr 7, 2006
9,699
1,368
New York/ Santa Rosa Beach
Hindsight is usually 20/20. Whenever the budding experts on international affairs on here tire of rehashing the obvious, what I would like to know is, what do we do now? Please be specific, and feel free to forward your ideas to the 2008 candidates...I looked at most of the major players websites yesterday on both sides of the aisle, and other than Kucinich (ok, not a major player but a fun read) and McCain, the others are pretty vague.

Happy Easter wishes all around from chilly, damp New Orleans.:D

Skunky, of course the candidates are vague right now. Asking someone to come up with a definitive plan at this stage of their campaigns would be political death at this point. It's like asking someone to take a tangled ball of string that's had glue added to it, and asking them to unwind with their teeth. :dunno:

Yes, drink until you feel you are 'brilliant'.

Why do I have the feeling that your idea of decimating is going to be characterized by

1) Reminding us of your 'brilliance'
2) Lobbing insults at others

...all capped off with a poorly written diatribe speckled with vague and completely irrelevant cultural and historical references.

That isn't so much the sound of high-fives you hear but folks slapping their foreheads in amazement at watching someone's ego write checks his intelligence can't cash.

By all means, surprise me.

:lolabove: :rotfl:

Here is an interesting article:
Insider: Missteps Soured Iraqis on U.S.
By CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP Special Correspondent

document.write(getElapsed("20070409T060853Z"));6 hours agoUPDATED 5 HOURS 9 MINUTES AGO
NEW YORK - In a rueful reflection on what might have been, an Iraqi government insider details in 500 pages the U.S. occupation's "shocking" mismanagement of his country _ a performance so bad, he writes, that by 2007 Iraqis had "turned their backs on their would-be liberators."
"The corroded and corrupt state of Saddam was replaced by the corroded, inefficient, incompetent and corrupt state of the new order," Ali A. Allawi concludes in "The Occupation of Iraq," newly published by Yale University Press.
Allawi writes with authority as a member of that "new order," having served as Iraq's trade, defense and finance minister at various times since 2003. As a former academic, at Oxford University before the U.S.-British invasion of Iraq, he also writes with unusual detachment.
The U.S.- and British-educated engineer and financier is the first senior Iraqi official to look back at book length on his country's four-year ordeal. It's an unsparing look at failures both American and Iraqi, an account in which the word "ignorance" crops up repeatedly.
First came the "monumental ignorance" of those in Washington pushing for war in 2002 without "the faintest idea" of Iraq's realities. "More perceptive people knew instinctively that the invasion of Iraq would open up the great fissures in Iraqi society," he writes.
What followed was the "rank amateurism and swaggering arrogance" of the occupation, under L. Paul Bremer's Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), which took big steps with little consultation with Iraqis, steps Allawi and many others see as blunders:
_ The Americans disbanded Iraq's army, which Allawi said could have helped quell a rising insurgency in 2003. Instead, hundreds of thousands of demobilized, angry men became a recruiting pool for the resistance.
_ Purging tens of thousands of members of toppled President Saddam Hussein's Baath party _ from government, school faculties and elsewhere _ left Iraq short on experienced hands at a crucial time.
_ An order consolidating decentralized bank accounts at the Finance Ministry bogged down operations of Iraq's many state-owned enterprises.
_ The CPA's focus on private enterprise allowed the "commercial gangs" of Saddam's day to monopolize business.
_ Its free-trade policy allowed looted Iraqi capital equipment to be spirited away across borders.
_ The CPA perpetuated Saddam's fuel subsidies, selling gasoline at giveaway prices and draining the budget.
In his 2006 memoir of the occupation, Bremer wrote that senior U.S. generals wanted to recall elements of the old Iraqi army in 2003, but were rebuffed by the Bush administration. Bremer complained generally that his authority was undermined by Washington's "micromanagement."
Although Allawi, a cousin of Ayad Allawi, Iraq's prime minister in 2004, is a member of a secularist Shiite Muslim political grouping, his well-researched book betrays little partisanship.
On U.S. reconstruction failures _ in electricity, health care and other areas documented by Washington's own auditors _ Allawi writes that the Americans' "insipid retelling of `success' stories" merely hid "the huge black hole that lay underneath."
For their part, U.S. officials have often largely blamed Iraq's explosive violence for the failures of reconstruction and poor governance.
The author has been instrumental since 2005 in publicizing extensive corruption within Iraq's "new order," including an $800-million Defense Ministry scandal. Under Saddam, he writes, the secret police kept would-be plunderers in check better than the U.S. occupiers have done.
As 2007 began, Allawi concludes, "America's only allies in Iraq were those who sought to manipulate the great power to their narrow advantage. It might have been otherwise."
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
 
Last edited:

30A Skunkape

Skunky
Jan 18, 2006
10,323
2,353
55
Backatown Seagrove
Skunky, of course the candidates are vague right now. Asking someone to come up with a definitive plan at this stage of their campaigns would be political death at this point. It's like asking someone to take a tangled ball of string that's had glue added to it, and asking them to unwind with their teeth. :dunno:

Why would it be political death? Every Democrat candidate is blasting the war effort but offering no solutions. Scratch that, Kucinich is clear on what he would do. I am puzzled why they can have definitive plans on taxes, healthcare, social safety nets but are adrift in focus groups when it comes to the (in my opinion) most pressing issue of the day:dunno:
 
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter