Cindy's own words

[clk]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cindi's own words? You want Cindi

Inspections were only part of the containment. We were spending around $13 billion per year on containment, with no end in sight. Yes, that's cheaper in a dollar basis. But it was also perpetual, and had other, non-dollar costs as well.

Even if containment were slightly more expensive in the long run, the number of US soldiers whose lives would have been saved (~1900) would have well been worth the extra cost.

The inspectors were NEVER given a mandate to stay indefinitely. Their express purpose was to verify disarmament. If they had ever managed to verify that Saddam had no weapons (they didn't), then they would have been obligated to pack up and leave. Did you not know this? It would have taken a completely new mandate from the UN to get inspectors to make sure he never rearmed, and frankly, you're smoking crack if you think the UN would have been willing to do that, considering how willingly they let Saddam halt cooperation in '98 without consequences.

If they find nothing, then they can leave. I see no problem with that. If evidence is found that Saddam is restarting his WMD program, then we can put them in again. If he refuses, then we can start considering military action. What is wrong with that?

 

[tofu]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cindi's own words? You want Cindi's own w

Before the invasion in the simulated war games the US lost. The losing generals cried foul because the person playing the Iraqi’s used insurgents and guerrilla warfare.

SHENANEGINS! Link please.

 

[clk]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cindi's own words? You want Cindi's o

SHENANEGINS! Link please.

Hey tofu, I answered your questions, why don't you trying answering mine?

If we went into Iraq to combat terrorism, why didn't Bush tell us that terrorists would start flooding into Iraq to fight us? Why did Wolfowitz say that less than 100,000 troops would be needed? Why did Bush claim in 2003 that major combat operations were over? Why did Rumsfeld only plan on having 40,000 troops in Iraq by Fall 2003?

I'm sure you know the answer to these questions: Because Bush was completely caught off guard by the insurgency. He thought that Iraqis would greet us with flowers, that the war would be over in a few months, that they would be able to install Chalabi to lead Iraq, and then everyone would live happily ever after. You and I both know this is the truth. Let's see if you can admit it.

As I've said before, I don't follow the logic of supporters of the Bush administration when it comes to terrorism policy. Perhaps it's because their stance is devoid of logic. For example, Bush recently said:

"The enemy understands a free Iraq will be a major defeat in their ideology of hatred. That's why they're fighting so vociferously." —George W. Bush, first presidential debate, Coral Gables, Fla., Sept. 30, 2004

So if there is major fighting in Iraq, then it's because the enemy is desperate. But if Iraq had gone as planned, and we had converted it to a democracy quickly without any insurgent attacks, then he would undoubtedly have used the whole 'Mission Accomplished' aircraft carrier thing during his entire campaign. And used every opportunity that he had to discuss how great the war in Iraq went in the fight against terrorism. I wonder, though, why didn't any Republican predict that the insurgency was going to happen as it did? If Iraq is the centerpiece of the war on terror, then why didn't they prepare and plan for the insurgency? I mean, it WAS part of the plan that terrorists would flood in from all over the world to fight us, right?

 

[Ziggurat]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cindi's own words? You want Cindi

Even if containment were slightly more expensive in the long run, the number of US soldiers whose lives would have been saved (~1900) would have well been worth the extra cost.

They'd be worth the extra dollar cost, yes. But I think freeing a nation of 25 million people from brutal tyranical rule is worth more than just dollars, it's worth genuine sacrifice. Perhaps you feel otherwise, and you are entitled to your opinion. But let's have none of this pretension that containment was cost-free, or that it could have accomplished the same objectives. You are welcome to your own judgment about whether or not the correct choice was made, but please, a little more honesty about what the choice really was.

If they find nothing, then they can leave. I see no problem with that. If evidence is found that Saddam is restarting his WMD program, then we can put them in again. If he refuses, then we can start considering military action. What is wrong with that?

Only the obvious: without inspectors, how would it ever be possible to detect Saddam restarting a WMD program? Given the problems we had with WMD intelligence already, why do you think they would magically disappear in the future? How could we ever have confidence that we weren't missing hidden programs, or that our intelligence about the existence of such programs was reliable? You're basically saying that you wanted to place all your confidence on the ability of our intelligence agencies to penetrate a secretive and closed totalitarian regime. That's not just overly optimistic, that's downright delusional. Our intelligence agencies have simply never been that good.

 

[clk]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cindi's own words? You wa

But let's have none of this pretension that containment was cost-free, or that it could have accomplished the same objectives.

It would have accomplished the main objective: ensuring that Saddam could not attack the US with WMD.

But I think an extended discussion on containing Saddam is not relevant. The main point is that Bush knew in February 2003 that his intelligence was bunk and that there was a good chance that Saddam no longer possessed WMD. Despite knowing this, he continued to lie and claim that there was "no doubt" Saddam had WMD, even though he damn well knew there were some very serious doubts. Bush then attacked a country that posed no threat to us, and even worse, he knew they were not a threat to us. In the process, $200 billion dollars have been spent, 1900 Americans have died, 14000 Americans have been injured, and the integrity of the United States damaged beyond repair. I'm not saying that containment would have been a perfect solution, just that it would have been a helluva better option. Our economy would have been in better shape, we would not have lost 1900 of our young men, and we would still have some semblance of integrity. Would Iraqis continue to be brutalized? Yes, but they would be much better off under Saddam than if they lived in Saudi Arabia. Besides, 20,000 Iraqi civilians have already died as a result of this war. Would Saddam have killed 20,000 if we left him in power? Maybe, but at least the blood would have been on his hands instead of ours.

 

[joe1347]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cindi's own words? You wa

. . . The main point is that Bush knew in February 2003 that his intelligence was bunk and that there was a good chance that Saddam no longer possessed WMD. Despite knowing this, he continued to lie and claim that there was "no doubt" Saddam had WMD, even though he damn well knew there were some very serious doubts. Bush then attacked a country that posed no threat to us, . . . [/B]

For some reason the Administration supporters just don't want to acknowledge, what has now become obvious, that the Adminstrations stated reasons for going to war (i.e., WMD's and links to terrorists) were fabricated. I keep asking (I know I'm a broken record on this topic) - what were the real reasons for going to war? As much as I would like to hold the administration in contempt for going to war for possibly B.S. reasons that I have heard such as: 1) he tried to kill my daddy, 2) hike oil prices to enrich ExonMobil execs,, and 3) enrich Haliburton and other war-related contractor buddies. I'd like to believe that Bush still had the countries best interest at heart and went to war for pragmatic reasons that were in our countries best interest - but were believed at the time the war was being "sold" as something that would not play in Peoria - so to speak (i.e., the unwashed masses were considered too unsophisticated to support a war based on something too "complicated" to understand or alternatively based on a reason that would be very unpopular).

Unfortunately, the war may not have been the cakewalk promised by some key advisors (who should be fired if this is true) and now we have an ugly mess on our hands - so the Adminstration is taking unexpected heat. Plus I suspect that even though the prewar WMD intell looks to have been cooked - I believe that the Administration believed that Iraq was hiding at least a few WMD's that an invasion would turn up. Thus providing the necessary justification for the war. But since nothing (WMD's or links to terrorists) turned up, the pressure is back on the Adminstration for again what were the real reason for going to war. So it looks like the Administration has to either keep spinning the terrorism justification that non-bush supporters are easily tearing apart or come clean and hope that the American public will not turn on them.

As for what were the real (unstated) reasons for the war. The "best" one that I've heard is that the real reason was actually about eliminating a continuing threat to Israel and also improve the long term stability of the region further ensuring the survival of Israel. With all of the anti-semitism in the world community and yes in the USA, a "lets save Israel" reason for the Iraq war would have been politically unpopular especially in regions of the USA that are traditionally Bush supporters. The other somewhat obvious pragmatic reason for going to war was simply to secure Iraq's massive oil reserves that the USA so desparately needs. Certainly, securing the oil would be a justification extremely unpopular outside of the USA and if acknowledged may result in some kind of international sanctions against the USA.

Possibly the "save Israel" or "secure the oil" reasons for the war are incorrect and there may be another politically unpopular reason that is still unknown, but I suspect that readers can see where I'm going with this line of thought. The Adminstration has got itself backed into a corner with what looks like no easy way out and probably doesn't even know what to do. Personally, I think that we should cut our losses and just leave.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cindi's own words? You want Cindi's own words?

You know, I see this a lot and I'm curious about it. Let's ignore the whole "sham" election thing, because you think all elections which don't go your way are shams (and one wonders what "your way" might have looked like in the Iraqi election).

Back that accusation up, or retract it and apologise.

 

[MarksSock]

Well, you've already demonstrated the... er... "special" relationship you have with the English language when it suits you. Under the reight circumstances, you could probably consider a handshake akin to rape as well. That's jsut kinda your thing, using words incorrectly and then blaming someone else for it.

I repeat the question: WHERE IS THE QUOTE THAT SAYS TROOPS COMMITED CHILD RAPE?

All those links, and all you come up with is this"



Why not show a little dignity and admit you overplayed your hand? Or is that just a little too rape-like for you to deal with?

Since I specifically said that no one I know of was accusing our soldiers of commtting child rape, your comment is, once again, irgnorant and irrelevant. At best. At worst it is lying. Again.

 

[MarksSock]

Not really, I wasn't much interested in a three-word summary of presidents according to Mark.

I want to know what you love about America, and what persons or institutions exemplify that. If you read my original post up there again, it should be patently obvious. All you've given me is that there have been two presidents in the last 100 years you respect, without much explanation of why.

What is good about America to you? Mom, apple pie, Chevrolet, baseball, what? There must be something that keeps you on this side of the Canadian border. What is it?

I ansered your question, so once again you are a liar.

 

[MarksSock]

Already did, in this very thread. In fact, you responded to the post. Didn't answer my question, but you did respond to the post. So you, or at least your doppleganger, knows about it.

You mean just like last time? Oh, my heart's all afflutter.

Wait until your password "error" is cleared up (something else about which you're lying). I'm done conversing with violations of Rule 7.

I saw your link. Please quote the exact words where she supported terrorists. I must have missed it.

Or is this, like Jocko, just more Right Wing lying?

And I am not lying about the password problem. Please explain why you think I am lying about it? Or are you able to read minds? (In which case, you should apply for the JREF prize). Oh, that's right, reality is whatever you say it is...just like a good Republican. Check with Upchurch about it if you are concerned.

If you had the ability to reason, you would be able to figure out that if I "remember" the MarsSock, password I would remember the other one as well (they are the same, btw). But then, you are a Republican. 'Nuff said.

 

[Manny]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cindi's own words? You want Cindi's own words?

Back that accusation up, or retract it and apologise.

Oooooh, Wah! You think the Iraqi election is a sham, without a shred of evidence. You think the US election is a sham, without a shred of reliable evidence. That's enough for me to conclude that you are an election wooist.

 

[Ziggurat]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cindi's own words? You wa

Would Iraqis continue to be brutalized? Yes, but they would be much better off under Saddam than if they lived in Saudi Arabia.

This claim is demonstrably false. Iraq had a significant number of people who fled the country as refugees because of Saddam. Saudi Arabia, while it has plenty of expats, does NOT have a significant refugee outflow. Why is that? Because you're simply and completely wrong: life under Saddam was worse than life in Saudi Arabia, and the proof is the people voting with their feet.

Besides, 20,000 Iraqi civilians have already died as a result of this war. Would Saddam have killed 20,000 if we left him in power? Maybe, but at least the blood would have been on his hands instead of ours.

I take no comfort from the idea that blood would be on someone else's hands and not ours. That is not morality, that is selfish indulgence. But Saddam had far more than just blood on his hands. He was also drenched in an ocean of human misery, the fear and despair of 25 million people whose lives had gotten progressively worse since the day he seized power, and who had no hope of anything better as long as he, or his sons, remained in power.

 

[Ziggurat]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cindi's own words? You wa

2) hike oil prices to enrich ExonMobil execs,
...
The other somewhat obvious pragmatic reason for going to war was simply to secure Iraq's massive oil reserves that the USA so desparately needs.

Are you aware of your own logical inconsistency? These two reasons are diametrically opposed, they are contradictory: securing more oil reserves acts to LOWER, not raise, oil prices. It cannot be both, it can only be one or the other. So which is it?

Edit to add: actually, you don't need to tell me. The beauty of this "argument" is that you win either way: if oil prices go up, you claim it's to enrich ExonMobil execs, if it goes down, you say it's to secure oil reserves. In other words, you're trying to argue from an unfalsifiable position. But unfortunately it also means that, once this is recognized, your argument becomes worthless as well.

 

[joe1347]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cindi's own words? You wa

Are you aware of your own logical inconsistency? These two reasons are diametrically opposed, they are contradictory: securing more oil reserves acts to LOWER, not raise, oil prices. It cannot be both, it can only be one or the other. So which is it?

Edit to add: actually, you don't need to tell me. The beauty of this "argument" is that you win either way: if oil prices go up, you claim it's to enrich ExonMobil execs, if it goes down, you say it's to secure oil reserves. In other words, you're trying to argue from an unfalsifiable position. But unfortunately it also means that, once this is recognized, your argument becomes worthless as well.

I apologize for failing to clearly stating the point that I was trying to get across. I was implying that the real reason(s) for the war (Iraq - not the war on Terrorism) are politically impossible for the Bush Administration to admit to. As I also implied or stated, the real (unstated) reasons were possibly in the countries best interests, such as to save Israel or to secure large oil reserves. However, if the real reasons were more along the lines to enrich Bush supporters - then it's a whole new ballgame and if true, a likely impeachable offense. So to my mind, Bush has backed himself into an indefensible corner. I can't think of a way that the Administration would come out of this without severe damage if they admitted the war was for some politically unpopular reason (e.g., save Israel) and there is no way Bush is going to admit to an impeachable offense. So what else can he do except keep trumpeting the "war on terror" reason (fighting them over there - so we don't have to fight them here or something like that)? Even worse (for Bush), he's given the Democrats a golden opportunity/issue to hammer him on that it's tough to respond to without the usual attack the messenger approach.

 

[clk]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cindi's own words

This claim is demonstrably false. Iraq had a significant number of people who fled the country as refugees because of Saddam. Saudi Arabia, while it has plenty of expats, does NOT have a significant refugee outflow. Why is that? Because you're simply and completely wrong: life under Saddam was worse than life in Saudi Arabia, and the proof is the people voting with their feet.

If that is the case, then answer my question: where would you rather live if you were a woman, in Saudi Arabia, or Saddam's Iraq? In Saddam's Iraq, women were granted equal opportunities in the civil service sector, maternity benefits, and freedom from harassment in the workplace.

Women in Saudi Arabia aren't allowed to work. Those who walk unaccompanied are at risk of arrest on suspicion of prostitution or other "moral" offences. They have to cover themselves completely from head to toe, or face arrest.
In general, they are as free as slaves.

sources: http://hrw.org/backgrounder/wrd/iraq-women.htm
http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/saudi/briefing/4.html

Why are there more refugees out of Iraq? Well, don't expect any women from Saudi Arabia to flee the country...if they are caught walking around alone, they are arrested. Your point is logically flawed, anyways. The number of refugees is not necessarily proportional to the oppression of the country. Example: There aren't many refugees that come out of North Korea, yet it is one of the worst places on the planet to live.

I take no comfort from the idea that blood would be on someone else's hands and not ours. That is not morality, that is selfish indulgence. But Saddam had far more than just blood on his hands. He was also drenched in an ocean of human misery, the fear and despair of 25 million people whose lives had gotten progressively worse since the day he seized power, and who had no hope of anything better as long as he, or his sons, remained in power.

There's a lot more oppression going on in Saudi Arabia, trust me. But don't expect Bush to do anything more than kiss their ass.

 

[Ziggurat]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cindi's own words? You w

I apologize for failing to clearly stating the point that I was trying to get across. I was implying that the real reason(s) for the war (Iraq - not the war on Terrorism) are politically impossible for the Bush Administration to admit to.

That wasn't clear to me. Yes, this is a real possibility, although it still leaves the question as to what those supposed real motives are. But it's also not a possibility I'm very concerned with.

I supported the invasion of Iraq. I thought there were a number of reasons which together made it a very worthwhile endeavor. Some of them were stated by Bush (that Saddam supported terrorists, for example, is quite well documented), some of them were hinted at but not really emphasized (destabilizing neighboring authoritarian regimes). But the point is, my reasons existed regardless of what Bush did or did not say: since I thought (and still think) the invasion was the right thing to do, it was really quite secondary what Bush's explanation was, let alone his true motives.

Debates about motives (especially ascribed motives), rather than the actual actions and consequences, aren't very productive.

As I also implied or stated, the real (unstated) reasons were possibly in the countries best interests, such as to save Israel or to secure large oil reserves. However, if the real reasons were more along the lines to enrich Bush supporters - then it's a whole new ballgame and if true, a likely impeachable offense.

Here's where I disagree. I don't care if Bush's true motives was just to enrich Haliburton (though if it was, it didn't work well), what I care about is if it actually DID further the interests of our country. I think it did, and so the question of WHY Bush did it becomes irrelevant to me.

Even worse (for Bush), he's given the Democrats a golden opportunity/issue to hammer him on that it's tough to respond to without the usual attack the messenger approach.

Don't be too certain. Bush is indeed vulnerable on this issue, but far too often, what should be an attack on a vulnerable position ends up just exposing views of the attackers as being far outside the mainstream. That may do fine for getting attention, but that won't get you elected. Cindy, for example, has come out in opposition to the Afghanistan war. That will never fly as an electoral position. The public may be split about Iraq, but the VAST majority of people think the Afghanistan war was the right thing to do. Tie yourself too tightly to people like Cindy in order to attack Bush on Iraq, and you end up with a liability yourself. The democrats will never be able to use Iraq against Bush unless they can jettison this pacifist wing of the party, and make it clear to the public that those aren't really the folks calling the shots. I don't hold out high hopes for them to be able to do so.

 

[clk]

I ansered your question, so once again you are a liar.

Jocko has a history of intellectual dishonesty, so don't be surprised or offended.

 

[Orwell]

Double post.

Sorry!

 

[Orwell]

Another question: Why hasn't the anti-war movement disavowed her support of terrorists?

Okay, you can say that the anti-war movement isn't an organized institution, and has no central spokesman, no central organization. But in that case, can someone point to anyone who's a significant voice in the anti-war movement, who has disavowed Shhehan's support for terrorists?

[bueller]
Anyone?

Anyone?
[/bueller]

Cindy Sheehan supports terrorists?!

You quite sure about that? Are you sure that you're not distorting her words, or interpreting them in a way that suits you, with the objective of discrediting her?

I mean, whenever Dubya says something dumb, he often gets quite a lot of slack from you, and he's a professional politician!

Is that really what she was trying to say ? Come on, be honest about it!

 

[Ziggurat]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cindi's own words

There's a lot more oppression going on in Saudi Arabia, trust me.

Unless you're a Saudi or Iraqi woman, then actually no, I won't trust your opinion on the matter. I'll make my own conclusions, and they still differ from yours.

But don't expect Bush to do anything more than kiss their ass.

And what, exactly, would you have him do? Are you actually arguing that we should have invaded Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq? Because unless that's your opinion, then you don't have an argument for why this would mean that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq.