The New York Times Surrenders

[sirs]

Predictions that the military regime of Saddam Hussein would be overcome with ease were accurate , who though was predicting that the  cleaning up of terrorism would be short?

My question precisely     

[Universe Prince]

This last exchange dealt with Yalta and how the Soviets got to that point.

Yep. Sure did.

Perhaps in this case the US is taking the role of Nazi Germany and Al Queda the role of the other aliies.

Well, I'm thinking that is not what Mr. Hanson meant. But by all means, feel free to expound on that.

Exceot we never had a non aggression pact with them.

Which goes to my point. It reminds me of the time a pal of mine made a joke about him and I having the same kind of car. He explained that he had a car just like mine, except his was a sedan (at the time I drove a two-door), and was longer, had a different body style, and had bigger engine, was a different color, and made by a different car company. But other than that, they were "exactly" the same. As I said before, to apply the trite term of "apples and oranges" here would be appropriate.

[Michael Tee]

<<Prince, with all due respect, I'm able to differentiate between the rhetoric aimed at the battle of taking out Saddam vs the rhetoric in dealing with the war on Terror & the Post-saddam aftermath.  I would assume you can too>>

sirs, that's just brilliant.  Unfortunately none of the speakers that Prince quoted from made any such distinction in their speeches and, it seems, nobody but you was able to take that meaning.  I bet you just read their minds - - all of them.

[Universe Prince]

Predictions that the military regime of Saddam Hussein would be overcome with ease were accurate , who though was predicting that the  cleaning up of terrorism would be short?

Who was predicting that U.S. troops would still be fighting in Iraq four years after the start of the war? Who? Find me the gorram quotes! I want to see where the administration was explaining how American troops were going to be fighting in Iraq for years. Show me the frakking quotes. I don't believe you can.

At no time did I claim anyone suggested the "war on terror" would be short. I said, and I quote myself again, "many of the folks insisting that a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq will result in massive and bloody civil war were also telling us before the action started that the conflict in Iraq was going to be a cakewalk." Notice that the phrase "going to be a cakewalk" refers directly to "the conflict in Iraq". I'll say it again since there seems to have been some confusion. Notice that the phrase "going to be a cakewalk" refers directly to "the conflict in Iraq". Notice also that there is no mention in that sentence of the overall "war on terror". And in addition, I feel I should point out, that not only are U.S. troops are still fighting in Iraq, most folks are still referring to the current conflict in Iraq as "the war in Iraq" or some close variation thereof.

So please, stop trying to sell me cow chips and calling them cookies. Thank you.

[Michael Tee]

I think the problem is that in sirs' mind, a speech means whatever sirs says it means four years after the event, depending on what actually happened in those four years.  Think of sirs as an editor - - he inserts distinctions into the speech, distinctions that, however easily they could have been made then, were never made.  Now, with the full advantage of hindsight, sirs helpfully supplies the distinctions.  Not that there's any actual evidence in the words of the speech itself that the speaker intended to make any such distinction.  That's not a problem.  sirs knows the distinctions they intended to make.  That's because sirs has read their minds.

[Plane]

Predictions that the military regime of Saddam Hussein would be overcome with ease were accurate , who though was predicting that the  cleaning up of terrorism would be short?

Who was predicting that U.S. troops would still be fighting in Iraq four years after the start of the war? Who? Find me the gorram quotes! I want to see where the administration was explaining how American troops were going to be fighting in Iraq for years. Show me the frakking quotes. I don't believe you can.

At no time did I claim anyone suggested the "war on terror" would be short. I said, and I quote myself again, "many of the folks insisting that a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq will result in massive and bloody civil war were also telling us before the action started that the conflict in Iraq was going to be a cakewalk." Notice that the phrase "going to be a cakewalk" refers directly to "the conflict in Iraq". I'll say it again since there seems to have been some confusion. Notice that the phrase "going to be a cakewalk" refers directly to "the conflict in Iraq". Notice also that there is no mention in that sentence of the overall "war on terror". And in addition, I feel I should point out, that not only are U.S. troops are still fighting in Iraq, most folks are still referring to the current conflict in Iraq as "the war in Iraq" or some close variation thereof.

So please, stop trying to sell me cow chips and calling them cookies. Thank you.

"Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun.  This campaign may not be finished on our watch -- yet it must be and it will be waged on our watch. "

President George W. Bush
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html

There it is , of course it is from an obscure speech that no one pays attention to , the state of the union speech.

What do you think he is referring to?

The Al Queda has the option of attacking anywhere and that place that they choose is where we must fight them.

Saddam was rolled up like a rug in short order and all statements predecting this were accurate .

 Al Queda chose to fight in Iraq after it failed in its defense of itself in Afganistan , was this predicted by anyone?

President Bush is clearly warning that the fight against terror will be long ,which he knew, even if he did not know what theater would be chosen.

[Universe Prince]

Now, with the full advantage of hindsight, sirs helpfully supplies the distinctions.

In all fairness to Sirs, the talk about the Iraq war before it started was generally about the toppling of the then Iraqi government. The problem I have with that, however, is that wasn't the end of the war. Yeah, the troops took out Saddam Hussein without much trouble, but the troops are still there, still fighting, still dying. U.S. troops staying in Iraq after the initial conflict to help rebuild, I can understand. Troops still there fighting a war years after the supposed goal of the conflict in the first place was accomplished, I don't understand. Or rather, I understand it, but I don't know why the leadership let it happen. All that stuff I hear about how leaving Iraq now is going to bolster the terrorists, help them recruit, all that stuff, seems to me that is already occurring. Our presence there is easily seen as a prime example of the sort of aggressive American foreign policy that people in the Middle East criticize. And we've provided, at our own expense, an effective training ground for urban warfare. Yeah, if we left now the terrorists would claim they drove us out, but I expect that to happen no matter when we pull the troops out (not unlike how after the 1990 Gulf War the then Iraqi government declared that they won the war).

I've been told that the U.S. can't pull troops out until the Iraqi police and military have been properly trained. Now as I recall, approximately a year ago, give or take a few months, I was told that objective would be reached in about 12-18 months. And relatively recently I've heard that the projected time frame for that objective was sometime in the next 12-18 months. So I'm left with one more reason to believe we've entered a state of perpetual war. And even if we do pull troops out of Iraq, there are other countries on our naughty list, like Iran and North Korea. And as Sirs pointed out, the "war on terror" has been touted as a long and possibly multi-generation spanning war. And I'm supposed to embrace this as necessary for the survival of the U.S. But this is anathema to my moral and political beliefs.

When the war in Iraq was going to be short, I reasoned with myself that Saddam Hussein was a really nasty guy, and if he had the WMD everyone seemed to be saying he had, then I was okay with taking the guy out. The freeing oppressed people narrative appealed to the romantic in me even if I was unsure about the WMD. And now U.S. troops are committed to a conflict with no end in sight. This is something with which I simply cannot agree.

[BT]

And now U.S. troops are committed to a conflict with no end in sight. This is something with which I simply cannot agree.

Then follow your conscience and continue to advocate their withdrawal.

[Plane]

A state of perpetual war is not unprecidened .

The Cold war was really the war against Bolshevism as it evolved over seventy years.

It was a good thing we were paitent in that fight .

Fighting terrorism is more like fighting organised Crime than it is like fighting the Soviet Union , it may be never completely over but also never a good idea to stop fighting.

[Universe Prince]

President Bush is clearly warning that the fight against terror will be long ,which he knew, even if he did not know what theater would be chosen.

Sweet cuppin' cakes! (he said in frustration and bewilderment, and in place of a few choice words of profanity.) Did you even read my post? I'm tired of repeating myself, so just go read it again. Slowly.

[Universe Prince]

Then follow your conscience and continue to advocate their withdrawal.

Good idea. Wish I'd thought of that. Thanks, BT.

[Universe Prince]

Fighting terrorism is more like fighting organised Crime than it is like fighting the Soviet Union

Then why don't... oh nevermind.

[BT]

Good idea. Wish I'd thought of that. Thanks, BT.

No problem.

[Plane]

President Bush is clearly warning that the fight against terror will be long ,which he knew, even if he did not know what theater would be chosen.

Sweet cuppin' cakes! (he said in frustration and bewilderment, and in place of a few choice words of profanity.) Did you even read my post? I'm tired of repeating myself, so just go read it again. Slowly.

"When the war in Iraq was going to be short, I reasoned with myself that Saddam Hussein was a really nasty guy, and if he had the WMD everyone seemed to be saying he had, then I was okay with taking the guy out. The freeing oppressed people narrative appealed to the romantic in me even if I was unsure about the WMD. And now U.S. troops are committed to a conflict with no end in sight. This is something with which I simply cannot agree. "


You can agree , and you will be wrong untill you do.

There may never be an end to evil that needs fighting , but we could indeed choose to join them because we can't beat them , that would not be a good thing.

We could choose to not oppose them , but that would not stop them from attacking us.

Perhaps you may met a patiet with a cronic condition who must fight his disease for the whole rest of his life , you would tell him that with no end in sight you couldn't agree with his haveing treatment?

I do not beleive that the Al Queda will have the staying power that Communism had nor do I think it ikely they will conquer half the Earth as Communism did , but Communism started small and was appealing to the romantic of all thinkers for three generations as it grew from nothing to the fullness of nightmare darkening half the globe.

Al Queda has not earned Iraq and we don't have to hand it to them.

[sirs]

Now, with the full advantage of hindsight, sirs helpfully supplies the distinctions.

In all fairness to Sirs, the talk about the Iraq war before it started was generally about the toppling of the then Iraqi government. .

I appreciate the added clarification from a largely objective 3rd party, Prince.  Thanks to Prince, another bogus accusation of Tee's highlighted for all to see, with not 1 shred of credible support