From the bastion of the left....

I would ask that every single conservate on this board answer this question once and for all:

ARE YOU OR HAVE YOU EVER BEEN, AWARE, THAT THE NY TIMES EDITORIAL PAGES, AKA "THAT BASTION OF THE LEFT" STRONGLY ADVOCATED FOR THE IRAQI WAR PRE-INVASION?

Yes, I am aware but choose to ignore it, it's more convienent.
No, I was not aware, I get my news from only Matt Drudge and he said they were commies.

Thank you.
 
Good link, Darla.

I just don't know why people continue to trust anyone who originally spoke with such certainty & optimism about the initial invasion. I'm amazed that so many unapologetic supporters of the initial invasion (Hannity, O'Reilly, et al.) continue to speak with such confidence about what constitutes good strategy in the WOT, and what doesn't.

After such a colossal, unequivicalble screw-up, the voices of such people should not be a part of any serious discussion about America's national security. The Iraq invasion is not one you get a mulligan on.
 
Onceler said:
Good link, Darla.

I just don't know why people continue to trust anyone who originally spoke with such certainty & optimism about the initial invasion. I'm amazed that so many unapologetic supporters of the initial invasion (Hannity, O'Reilly, et al.) continue to speak with such confidence about what constitutes good strategy in the WOT, and what doesn't.

After such a colossal, unequivicalble screw-up, the voices of such people should not be a part of any serious discussion about America's national security. The Iraq invasion is not one you get a mulligan on.
Click to expand...

I reconized Pollack's name, but couldn't remember why.

I know, I think it drives those who were right about the war, but still can't get onto Hardball, or onto the NY Times editorial pages, absolutely crazy. And it should.
 
Onceler said:
Good link, Darla.

I just don't know why people continue to trust anyone who originally spoke with such certainty & optimism about the initial invasion. I'm amazed that so many unapologetic supporters of the initial invasion (Hannity, O'Reilly, et al.) continue to speak with such confidence about what constitutes good strategy in the WOT, and what doesn't.

After such a colossal, unequivicalble screw-up, the voices of such people should not be a part of any serious discussion about America's national security. The Iraq invasion is not one you get a mulligan on.
Click to expand...


Darned good point , How many mulligans do these people expect to get ?
imho the staunch war supporters from the beginning have been wrong on many counts so they should not be believed now.

How many false wolf cries do they get ?
 
Great! Pretty soon things will be only a little worse than we initially invaded. Great post Super. This changes everything.


"we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with. "
 
Darla... since I would certainly be considered a "conservative" when it comes to my position on Iraq, I will answer your question....

Yes, I am aware that the bulk of the country (including the media) were behind this war at the beginning. We based our beliefs on the intel we had at the time (not to say ours was as good as the intel given to the politicians, but we went with what we had).

At the time, I felt that we should have waited for Afghanistan to be stablized first, but once we went in, I backed the decision and still do because I still think it was inevitable that it happen. (and yes, I realize many of you do not share this belief)

That said, a person can be of the position that the war was inevitable, that we were justified going in AND still be critical of the mess Bush has made of the war.

Side note: I put the whole "bastion of the left" thing in just to jerk your chains a bit. :D
 
"That said, a person can be of the position that the war was inevitable, that we were justified going in"

They can be of that position, but they'd be woefully wrong on both counts.

The Iraq war was never "inevitable," and the decision to invade was not justified by anything: not by Hans Blix's report in March of '03, not by any of the evidence that we had, not by the results that we have seen, and not by any stretch of the wildest, most koolaid-immersed imaganation out there...
 
LadyT said:
Great! Pretty soon things will be only a little worse than we initially invaded. Great post Super. This changes everything.


"we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with. "
Click to expand...

Great post. Typical and pretty much what is expected from you. "Any positives are not positive enough so quit bringing them up. Keep a death count like the rest of us and leave it at that."

Thanks... :tongout:
 
Superfreak said:
That said, a person can be of the position that the war was inevitable, that we were justified going in AND still be critical of the mess Bush has made of the war.
Click to expand...


Death and taxes are inevitable. Not invading and occupying countries that are already stabilized. You're right you can hold that position. Either you have a different working definition of the word "inevitable" or you're a war apologist.
 
Superfreak said:
Great post. Typical and pretty much what is expected from you. "Any positives are not positive enough so quit bringing them up. Keep a death count like the rest of us and leave it at that."

Thanks... :tongout:
Click to expand...

Breaking news: Fallujah wasn't bombed today. We're winning!
 
Onceler said:
"That said, a person can be of the position that the war was inevitable, that we were justified going in"

They can be of that position, but they'd be woefully wrong on both counts.

The Iraq war was never "inevitable," and the decision to invade was not justified by anything: not by Hans Blix's report in March of '03, not by any of the evidence that we had, not by the results that we have seen, and not by any stretch of the wildest, most koolaid-immersed imaganation out there...
Click to expand...

THAT is YOUR opinion Lorax.... and I believe you are woefully wrong.

You are of the position that the no-fly zone could have been maintained for another twenty or thirty years or whatever it took???

That Saddam was "contained".... I really love that argument... he was "contained" so we should stand by and do nothing... just like we are doing in the Sudan, just like we did in Rwanda.

The war was absolutely justified by the fact that Saddam was non-compliant for 12 years. But you want to look at the last three months on its own, ignoring the fact that he would not have given access to the UN had the US not built up its forces on his border.

You say that because no WMDs were found that it therefore meant the sanctions worked... which is BS... for if the sanctions had "worked", then the sanctions would have been lifted long ago.
 
Superfreak said:
That Saddam was "contained".... I really love that argument... he was "contained" so we should stand by and do nothing... just like we are doing in the Sudan, just like we did in Rwanda.
Click to expand...

Piss poor analogy. Sudan and Rwanda are examples of genocides and the regions were most certainly not stabilized and the factions were clearly not 'contained'. Equating them to Iraq is intellectually dishonest. Nice try though.
 
Saddam was not a threat to the US. That's what it comes down to. Thumbing one's nose at the UN does not warrant a war.
 
LadyT said:
Death and taxes are inevitable. Not invading and occupying countries that are already stabilized. You're right you can hold that position. Either you have a different working definition of the word "inevitable" or you're a war apologist.
Click to expand...

The fact that you call Pre-war Iraq stable shows just how little you know of the situation there at the time. Was Saddam capable of attacking us directly? No. Not a chance. Which is why Bush should have waited until after Afghanistan was under control. But Iraq was far from stable.

There is no question of my definition of inevitable. Saddam was not complying.... until we put 100k troops on his border. We could not leave the troops on his border indefinitely. So either we were going to go in or wait a month, pull our troops back and watch him start his games all over again. The UN failed completely. Had they been successful, this would have been resolved a decade ago.
 
Superfreak said:
THAT is YOUR opinion Lorax.... and I believe you are woefully wrong.

You are of the position that the no-fly zone could have been maintained for another twenty or thirty years or whatever it took???

That Saddam was "contained".... I really love that argument... he was "contained" so we should stand by and do nothing... just like we are doing in the Sudan, just like we did in Rwanda.

The war was absolutely justified by the fact that Saddam was non-compliant for 12 years. But you want to look at the last three months on its own, ignoring the fact that he would not have given access to the UN had the US not built up its forces on his border.

You say that because no WMDs were found that it therefore meant the sanctions worked... which is BS... for if the sanctions had "worked", then the sanctions would have been lifted long ago.
Click to expand...


Um, as we now know, Saddam actually WAS compliant, at least on the WMD parts of the UN directives, which was the main justification for invading.

It's so utterly ridiculous to say that the Iraq War was "inevitable." Ever hear of diplomacy? Ever hear of internal pressure? For every war, there are probably 100's of scenarios & situations that you could have as easily said would "inevitably" lead to war. It's such fucking apologist nonsense to continue to assert it about Iraq. They were never a threat to us, and Saddam would likely have been long dead if they were even able to pursue the programs he wanted to pursue, which in itself is an extremely unlikely possibility.

To say the war was inevitable is nothing more than an attempt to avoid accountability, and to let the idiots who got us here off the hook. How can they be blamed, if it had to happen anyway?

I'm tired of it. Enough w/ "Iraq was inevitable."
 
LadyT said:
Piss poor analogy. Sudan and Rwanda are examples of genocides and the regions were most certainly not stabilized and the factions were clearly not 'contained'. Equating them to Iraq is intellectually dishonest. Nice try though.
Click to expand...

Bullshit.... Sudan and Rwanda are both examples of governements allowing troops to butcher others with different religious beliefs. Saddams Iraq was no different. Neither Sudan nor Rwanda pose a threat to the US directly... neither did Saddam. Sudan and Rwanda are both contained to their region. They are not a threat to their neighbors. But Sudan should be dealt with and Rwanda should have been dealt with. Also, there is and was nothing to suggest that Iraq was stabilized. THAT is the most intellectually dishonest thing you can say. Yes, he was "contained".... but just how long were you going to keep the troops there to "contain" him? Forever?
 
Superfreak said:
The fact that you call Pre-war Iraq stable shows just how little you know of the situation there at the time. Was Saddam capable of attacking us directly? No. Not a chance. Which is why Bush should have waited until after Afghanistan was under control. But Iraq was far from stable.
There is no question of my definition of inevitable. Saddam was not complying.... until we put 100k troops on his border. We could not leave the troops on his border indefinitely. So either we were going to go in or wait a month, pull our troops back and watch him start his games all over again. The UN failed completely. Had they been successful, this would have been resolved a decade ago.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm sorry. Maybe I missed something. Were hundreds of Iraqi's being blown to bits on a weekly basis by Al Queda and other factions before we went in? Were women not free to walk the streets without a Burqua? Exactly how many mosques were being blown up per month before we invaded? And how many refugees were there? I was under the misguided impression that these weren't issues in the months leading up to our invasion. If you have evidence of the contrary, please share them with the board.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top