Not learning from our mistakes

[Plane]

The attempt pt "fix " Iraq has been much more costly and painfull than the overthrow of Saddam Hussein .

If our efforts can be split into two parts the first part where the mission was to topple Saddams regime was the easy part and the mission was clear.

The second part has cost more in every way ,has lasted longer and the goals are hazy and prone to move.

Would we be better off to just destroy enemys and let the remnants care for them selves and build from the rubble without so much assistance?

[sirs]

That depends on what you mean by "pose a threat".

I mean an enemy that poses a threat to the life of Americans.  an enemy that has pledged that one either convert to Islam (their mutated version of it, at least), be subjugated to it, or die.  And eneny that won't blink twice in killing themselves in order to accomplish the above 3 criteria in bring it about.  An enemy that has demonstrated not just the will, but the effectiveness in targeting & killing scores of innocent me, women, and children, that don't fit their critiera mentioned above.  That's what I mean by "pose a threat"

No, I'm saying that the taking out of WMD and fixing Iraq are essentially the same thing. That's not blurring them. That's pointing out that they're essentially the same and that using different words doesn't alter the reality.

Ok, basically what you just said their, is I'm not blurring "fixing Iraq" & taking out the WMD, they're essentially the same thing....in other words, blurring them to appear as essentially the same thing, whey they're NOT

So how would making war on Iraq to take out the Iraqi government and the WMD not be "fixing" Iraq since that was the perceived problem in the first place?

The problem was specific to WMD.  THAT was the intention from the get go, Prince.  Always has been.  That didn't requiring 'fixing" that required surgical removal.  That was accomplished, and we could have left it at that.  You have said so yourself, that war was won.  Then you apparently contradict yourself and claim that that war is all part of one big "Iraq fix", which supposedly was our intention in the 1st place.  I defy you to show me where Bush claimed our intentions were to rebuild Iraq as we see fit... screw the WMD problem, Iraq needs fixing.  I doubt you'll be able to

[Universe Prince]

Would we be better off to just destroy enemys and let the remnants care for them selves and build from the rubble without so much assistance?

We would be better off keeping our government out of rebuilding.

[Universe Prince]

I mean an enemy that poses a threat to the life of Americans.  an enemy that has pledged that one either convert to Islam (their mutated version of it, at least), be subjugated to it, or die.  And eneny that won't blink twice in killing themselves in order to accomplish the above 3 criteria in bring it about.  An enemy that has demonstrated not just the will, but the effectiveness in targeting & killing scores of innocent me, women, and children, that don't fit their critiera mentioned above.  That's what I mean by "pose a threat"

And so your solution is to threaten their lives, insist they convert to Western thinking or be subjugated by it or die, and to not think twice about killing them in order to accomplish that criteria. Hm? Oh yeah, I know, I'm twisting your words, but actually, that's just my honest summation of the situation. That is pretty much what we're doing, and you're supporting it.

Ok, basically what you just said their, is I'm not blurring "fixing Iraq" & taking out the WMD, they're essentially the same thing....in other words, blurring them to appear as essentially the same thing, whey they're NOT

Uh, no. Because they are the same. When you can do better than saying 'not' in capital letters as an explanation as to why they are different, then maybe I'll reconsider.

The problem was specific to WMD. 

WMD in Iraq, developed by the government of Iraq.

THAT was the intention from the get go, Prince.  Always has been.  That didn't requiring 'fixing" that required surgical removal.  That was accomplished, and we could have left it at that.  You have said so yourself, that war was won.  Then you apparently contradict yourself and claim that that war is all part of one big "Iraq fix", which supposedly was our intention in the 1st place.

No, I said that the war to get the WMD and topple the Iraq government was "fixing" Iraq. You're the one who said that Iraqis able to handle security themselves was the winning objective from the beginning.

I defy you to show me where Bush claimed our intentions were to rebuild Iraq as we see fit... screw the WMD problem, Iraq needs fixing.  I doubt you'll be able to

Why the frak would I do that? That would have nothing to do with what I've said. I will, however point to where my question of when will we have won the war in Iraq was answered by you saying:

But to answer your query, it's been the same answer, since the the inception of the taking out of Saddam.....when the Iraqis are able to handle their own security

So you're the one suggesting the current "fixing" Iraq was all part of the plan from the beginning. And no one, not you or me or anyone else, has said that the current "fixing" was the reason we went into Iraq in the first place. But it is a consequence and has, according to you, been part of the plan all along.

[sirs]

And so your solution is to threaten their lives, insist they convert to Western thinking or be subjugated by it or die, and to not think twice about killing them in order to accomplish that criteria. Hm?

No, my solution has been the same since the get go as well.  Kill those who want to kill us, 1st.

Because they are the same (taking out Saddam's WMD threat vs "fixing Iraq")[/i]

Umm, no, they're not.  Next?

When you can do better than saying 'not' in capital letters as an explanation as to why they are different, then maybe I'll reconsider.

Been there, done that.  I can't help if you don't like the answers your given.  The fact that our intentions from the beginning were always & publically centered around WMD, and not about "fixing" the welfare of Iraq, and that apparently you can't accept such and have deemed them analogus is not my problem to fix

WMD in Iraq, developed by the government of Iraq.

Which is an irrelevent comment, especially when you hear many of the rabid left folks claiming the WMD were American, and not the product of "the Government of Iraq"

I said that the war to get the WMD and topple the Iraq government was "fixing" Iraq.

Then we obviously have different concepts of "fixing Iraq".  I see "fixing Iraq" as this nebulous need to impart Democracy, reconstruct the infrastructure, train Iraqi troops, etc.  If you want to limit it to just the taking out the WMD threat, then OK, I can go along with that.  Glad we're finally on the same page.

[Universe Prince]

And so your solution is to threaten their lives, insist they convert to Western thinking or be subjugated by it or die, and to not think twice about killing them in order to accomplish that criteria. Hm?

No, my solution has been the same since the get go as well.  Kill those who want to kill us, 1st.

To threaten their lives and not hesitate to kill them. Okay. And this will solve the problem how?

I can't help if you don't like the answers your given.  The fact that our intentions from the beginning were always & publically centered around WMD, and not about "fixing" the welfare of Iraq, and that apparently you can't accept such and have deemed them analogus is not my problem to fix

Are you reading some other thread with some other person and responding here? I never said the intentions in Iraq were not publically centered around the WMD. I never said they were centered around the welfare of Iraq. You should maybe try not being so quick to misunderstand me. You seem to think I've said something I did not in fact say at all.

WMD in Iraq, developed by the government of Iraq.

Which is an irrelevent comment, especially when you hear many of the rabid left folks claiming the WMD were American, and not the product of "the Government of Iraq"

B'huh? That the WMD were supposedly in Iraq is not relevant? To a discussion about why America went to war against Iraq? Are you serious?

Then we obviously have different concepts of "fixing Iraq".  I see "fixing Iraq" as this nebulous need to impart Democracy, reconstruct the infrastructure, train Iraqi troops, etc.  If you want to limit it to just the taking out the WMD threat, then OK, I can go along with that.  Glad we're finally on the same page.

Wha? Limit it? Who said I wanted to limit it? Where are you getting this stuff? I'd say we're not on the same page or perhaps even the same book.

[Plane]

Would we be better off to just destroy enemys and let the remnants care for them selves and build from the rubble without so much assistance?

We would be better off keeping our government out of rebuilding.

This should be considered .
Peter Sellers made a good movie once "The Mouse that Roared" about a small poor country that attacked the USA in hopes of a quick loss and years of financial assistance , but of course they had the hard luck to win .

If a country is a serious threat we ought to destroy their ability to threaten if we can even if we can't also rebuild their infrastructure.

Countrys that are not a threat should be allowed to insult us with total impunity , it isn't like funny pictures of our prophets rile us to killing fury .

[sirs]

To threaten their lives and not hesitate to kill them. Okay. And this will solve the problem how?

Let's qualify the sentence to make it more applicable to where my statement came from...To threaten them (terrorists who wouldn't blink twice in killing you, me, your family, my family) their lives and not hesitate to kill them (those Islamic militants that have pledged to kill those who do not convert or be subjugated to their version of Islam).  Adding the detail to your query provides the answer you're seeking.  At least it should point you in the right direction

Are you reading some other thread with some other person and responding here? I never said the intentions in Iraq were not publically centered around the WMD. I never said they were centered around the welfare of Iraq. You should maybe try not being so quick to misunderstand me. You seem to think I've said something I did not in fact say at all.

Yet, THAT's the point I've been making, that it was our intentions in dealing with the WMD threat, NOT to "fix Iraq".  But apparently you've qualified your "fix" now, as I quote you "I said that the war to get the WMD and topple the Iraq government was "fixing" Iraq."

B'huh? That the WMD were supposedly in Iraq is not relevant? To a discussion about why America went to war against Iraq? Are you serious?

This Merry-go-sematic-around is getting quite fatiguing.  It's irrelevent in how you're trying to pose the scenario.  I gather you're trying to again connect WMD  <--> Iraqi Government <--> Fix Iraq.  No?  It's a nearly non-existant connection, since we didn't intend to go into Iraq to "fix it".  WMD in Iraq is relevent in THAT's why we went in.

Wha? Limit it? Who said I wanted to limit it? Where are you getting this stuff?

From you; "I said that the war to get the WMD and topple the Iraq government was "fixing" Iraq.".  I don't see anything that resembles Democratizing, Nation building, Troop re-training, Infrastructure reconstruction, etc.  Was their code in your statement that required my need for a decoder ring?

[Universe Prince]

Let's qualify the sentence to make it more applicable to where my statement came from...To threaten them (terrorists who wouldn't blink twice in killing you, me, your family, my family) their lives and not hesitate to kill them (those Islamic militants that have pledged to kill those who do not convert or be subjugated to their version of Islam).  Adding the detail to your query provides the answer you're seeking.  At least it should point you in the right direction

So killing them all first is going to solve the problem? No one is going to object to this? There are no bad outcomes with this plan? We just kill them all, and we're home free?

Yet, THAT's the point I've been making, that it was our intentions in dealing with the WMD threat, NOT to "fix Iraq".  But apparently you've qualified your "fix" now, as I quote you "I said that the war to get the WMD and topple the Iraq government was "fixing" Iraq."

Following you is getting more difficult as this goes along. You seem to be complaining about something, but I'm not sure what, except that it has something to do with something I never said. And yet, you quoted me as if I said something you think I said in that quote. I'm thinking that you're inferring more than what I'm actually saying. And I wish you would stop.

B'huh? That the WMD were supposedly in Iraq is not relevant? To a discussion about why America went to war against Iraq? Are you serious?

This Merry-go-sematic-around is getting quite fatiguing.  It's irrelevent in how you're trying to pose the scenario.  I gather you're trying to again connect WMD  <--> Iraqi Government <--> Fix Iraq.  No?  It's a nearly non-existant connection, since we didn't intend to go into Iraq to "fix it".  WMD in Iraq is relevent in THAT's why we went in.

Uh, yeah. Okay, but I said that going into Iraq for the WMD was going in to fix Iraq. So I'm still confused has to how the WMD supposedly being in Iraq is irrelevant to that. It seems exactly relevant, because that is why we sent the troops into Iraq. Which seems like what you just said, but it must not be because you said the WMD supposedly being in Iraq is irrelevant. And yet, you just said "WMD in Iraq is relevent in THAT's why we went in." It's relevant and irrelevant at the same time for the same reason. I think my head is going to explode.

Wha? Limit it? Who said I wanted to limit it? Where are you getting this stuff?

From you; "I said that the war to get the WMD and topple the Iraq government was "fixing" Iraq.".  I don't see anything that resembles Democratizing, Nation building, Troop re-training, Infrastructure reconstruction, etc.  Was their code in your statement that required my need for a decoder ring?

No, no code. But if you look over that statement again, there was also not a word about limiting anything. And at no point in this conversation, as in not even once, did I say that the current action in Iraq was not an attempt at fixing Iraq. So this whole limit thing is something from you, not from me. Apparently you're finding code where there is none to find. As I've said before, I'm rather straightforward and not a terribly subtle guy. Stick to what I say being what I mean, rather than trying to discern some other underlying meaning that probably isn't there. Please. For both our sakes.

This Merry-go-sematic-around is getting quite fatiguing.

So quit pushing it.

[Universe Prince]

I credit the war in Iraq as being an attempt to tackle terrorism at its root causes.

Of course it was. That does not, however, mean remaining there is the best course of action.

What is the best course of action. Float a proposal.

Stop acting and talking as if some concurrence of troop numbers and time is going to make Iraq work out the way we want, and then bring all the troops home.

[Michael Tee]

That's gotta be the most surrealistic debate I've witnessed in quite a long time.  We went into Iraq/stay in Iraq to take out WMD.  No, to fix the government.  No, to fight terrorism.  No, but fighting terrorism=fixing government=removing WMD.

Let me straighten you guys out.

You went into Iraq for the same reason the same people who pushed you in are now pushing you into Iran:  for OIL. 

Secondary objective: to permanently emasculate an important regional enemy of Israel.  (Mission accomplished.)

You could not possibly have gone in because of WMD because
1.  There is no conceivable way that Iraq, a country of 23 million people, even with nuclear weapons, could pose any kind of threat to the U.S.A.
2.  The WMD allegations relied in part on obviously forged evidence
3.  The WMD allegations all came from the same source (Iraqi National Congress, an exile group.)
4.  Saddam had never risked his army in any confrontation with the U.S., sought an American green light before invading Kuwait, pulled his army out of Kuwait without engaging the U.S.  and was, years later, much weaker militarily than he was when he first had the chance to engage the U.S. militarily.
5.  The U.S. was unable to convince the biggest European powers or Canada of the "threat."
6.  The "President's" advisors had for years advocated the invasion of Iraq in writing, lamenting only that they lacked the pretext for doing so.
7.  The rapidly expanding Chinese, Indian and other economies clearly indicated that a future demand-supply crunch is coming in oil and some kind of pre-emptive action would clearly be desirable. 

Only a total moron could believe in the face of this evidence that the U.S. had found convincing evidence of a "WMD threat" or that its motivation to invade Iraq was anything other than oil.  That so many of the "Invade Iraq" gang were Jews and ardent Zionists, and that the results of this buffoonery were so clearly of benefit to Israel,  indicate at least some influence from the Likud party and/or the Mossad in pushing these plans along.

In view of the above, that some people are still debating causes and/or motive to stay in terms of WMD, "war on terror," "bringing democracy to the region," "fixing Iraq," etc. is just ludicrous.

[sirs]

So killing them all first is going to solve the problem? No one is going to object to this? There are no bad outcomes with this plan? We just kill them all, and we're home free?

Yes...probably the terrorists that such killing is targeted towards...not really...yep

Following you is getting more difficult as this goes along. You seem to be complaining about something, but I'm not sure what, except that it has something to do with something I never said. And yet, you quoted me as if I said something you think I said in that quote. I'm thinking that you're inferring more than what I'm actually saying. And I wish you would stop.

Then stick with a specific connotation of what "fixing Iraq" is supposed to be.  Is it specific to WMD & removing Saddam from power or not??

Uh, yeah. Okay, but I said that going into Iraq for the WMD was going in to fix Iraq. So I'm still confused has to how the WMD supposedly being in Iraq is irrelevant to that. It seems exactly relevant, because that is why we sent the troops into Iraq. Which seems like what you just said, but it must not be because you said the WMD supposedly being in Iraq is irrelevant. And yet, you just said "WMD in Iraq is relevent in THAT's why we went in." It's relevant and irrelevant at the same time for the same reason. I think my head is going to explode.

That's because you're purposely misusing WMD, in this debate.  How I was using it was how it was relevent.  Take a couple of excedrin and stop trying to twist how I'm using WMD, is my suggestion

No, no code. But if you look over that statement again, there was also not a word about limiting anything. And at no point in this conversation, as in not even once, did I say that the current action in Iraq was not an attempt at fixing Iraq.

Except for the fact that you made specific reference to WMD & fixing Iraq.  Look Prince, if you inadvertantly put yourself in a corner, & now you're trying to act as if you never limited your statement, fine.  It would have been nice foryou to make that concession and clarification early on.  Instead you keep going around and around with the already fraudulant claim how fixing Iraq is = to ..... whatever it is you think it's equal to.  1st it was with everything we're apparently doing in Iraq, then it became taking out WMD & Saddam, now we're back to square 1.  I've already conceded that we're currently "fixing Iraq", but that was NOT the reason nor intentions of our going in.  You seemed to be convinced otherwise, yet your changing parameters for "fixing Iraq" have me to the point, that no matter what's said, your position will be unbendingly flexible....nor completely understood either.

This Merry-go-sematic-round is getting quite fatiguing.

So quit pushing it.

I'm not the one pushing it, but I'm going to be the 1st to get off it

[_JS]

No, my solution has been the same since the get go as well.  Kill those who want to kill us, 1st.

And that is the problem Sirs. It is overly simplistic reasoning that has gotten us into the current Iraqi civil war in the first place. Listen to your own arguments, you're arguing why we went to Iraq in the first place when the President himself (who gave the damned orders) said that:

We are in Iraq today because our goal has always been more than the removal of brutal dictator. It is to leave a free and democratic Iraq in his place.

So one of you is full of shit, by all means tell us which one of you it is. I know, I know - you can shift your words around to make it sound like that you agreed all along, but the truth is that you aren't that good at playing semantics and while you have the luxury of debating whether or not removing nonexistent WMD is equivalent to "fixing Iraq" there will be Iraqis, Afghanis, and Americans dying today or living the rest of their lives paralysed or without limbs.

Why?

Because you and your family did not feel safe and secure after 9/11. Because the United States was welcomed into the rest of the world with a bloody nose and you (and by that I mean many Americans) couldn't handle it like an adult, but instead played the part of an enraged teenager.

Guess what? You aren't safe and secure. Deal with it. You can kill Iraqis, detain Muslims, and enact as many racist policies against the Mexicans as you see fit but it will not make this country and your cozy bourgeois lifestyle perfectly safe and secure. If some nut wants to strap Semtex to his body and enter a building or shopping mall, there isn't a great deal you can do to stop him.

And you are going to have to live with the fact that this nation has African-Americans, Hispanics, and great day in the morning - people who (gasp) don't speak English. Even more difficult to comprehend, this country is not a place to force everyone to learn the Ten Commandments or read the Bible in public institutions (the largest group of organised Christians don't hold that the Bible contains 66 books - can you believe that?). There are Muslims and Jews who live, work, and vote in the United States. Businesses, newspapers, radio, television, and churches target Spanish speakers. Homosexuals are living together. There might be two women or two men showing affection very near you.

No matter how many Iraqis die, none of that will change. Israel will still discriminate in the same racist, segregationist methods used by the nationalist-ruled South Africa, but you'll continue to support them. When Hezbollah attacks actually hit something, they'll be evil - when Israel kills women and children (as with a recent attack on Gaza) it will be self-defence.

Iraqis will still be dying. You'll still be playing semantics and making overly-simplistic statements like "kill them before they kill us."

I have to agree with Tee on one thing, this debate is surreal. If you can't link the invasion of Iraq with the current Iraqi civil war (or sectarian war) then you've got real problems. Just calling it surreal is an offense to surrealism. It is something akin to sticking one's head in the sand to avoid any conception of reality.

[sirs]

Let me straighten you guys out.  You went into Iraq for the same reason the same people who pushed you in are now pushing you into Iran:  for OIL.   Secondary objective: to permanently emasculate an important regional enemy of Israel.  (Mission accomplished.)

And let me straighten both you and Js out.  We never went into Iraq because "Iraq was a threat to the U.S.", so Tee's continued misrepresentations of how incredibly impossible Iraq could have unleashed an attack on the U.S. are left only for the morons to perseverate over.  And again, we enjoy more of that Tee tactic of lack of proof (going in for the oil #1) as proof positive of #1

And does Js wish me to fine the plethora of Bush quotes that he made, making it clear why we went in to Iraq in the 1st place?  Not what we're doing now, not why we're there now, but why we went in originally.  Is that what you want to see Js?  Then I can claim that it's you that's full of AMBE?  If not, then I've effectively ended my merry-go-semantic-round ride.  You guys can keep playing though

[_JS]

We are in Iraq today because our goal has always been more than the removal of brutal dictator. It is to leave a free and democratic Iraq in his place.

Doesn't seem like I need a lesson in English language theory to understand the phrase "always been" Sirs. The next sentence qualifies the phrase. President Bush is using straight forward English, why can't you?