but unless you have lived that life it would be a waste of time trying to explain it.

Hog Wild on March 22, 2008 at 12:19 AM

Army life?

Been there, done that.

1193.

How many active military people do you actually know?

Know who are actually in the military right now?

One.

I know plenty.

Good for you I guess.

And none of them want to surrender.

Hog Wild on March 22, 2008 at 12:19 AM

That is so weird. Who would they surrender to?

MB4 on March 21, 2008 at 10:42 PM

How many active military people do you actually know?

I know plenty. And none of them want to surrender. They don’t like the situation, they dread deploying again, BUT THEY DO IT. Why? The retirement check waiting for them at the end?

Dream on. As I type this, I personally know a Marine who has extended his contract so he can serve another deployment in Iraq, he was out, but he said “no, I have experience that is useful” and he signed the dotted line again understanding completely what is in store for him. After this deployment, he plans to use his GI Bill to go to college. I could ramble on as to why he made such a choice, but unless you have lived that life it would be a waste of time trying to explain it. I’ll just say that there are people on this planet who value the lives of their friends more than their own.

Know anyone like that? If you don’t, it’s your loss.

Ever wonder why the military folks want to finish the job? A sense of pride, but mainly they don’t want to go back to Iraq to do it all over a second time.

Hog Wild on March 21, 2008 at 8:41 PM

They have been going back over and over again as it is now. Some of them are on a third tour already.

H/T Flopping Aces & Hot Air
A growing number of foreign fighters are leaving or attempting to flee Iraq as U.S. and Iraqi forces have weakened al-Qaeda and forced its members from former strongholds, U.S. military officials say.
The trend reflects …

H/T Flopping Aces & Hot Air
A growing number of foreign fighters are leaving or attempting to flee Iraq as U.S. and Iraqi forces have weakened al-Qaeda and forced its members from former strongholds, U.S. military officials say.
The trend reflects …

MB4 on March 21, 2008 at 8:00 PM

Your logic is flawed, and I don’t mean that as a insult. Say Obama get’s elected, he said he would go back into Iraq if he felt the needed to. So instead sticking out a tough situation that is improving daily, we pull out and if we have to plunge our military back into chaos?

Ever wonder why the military folks want to finish the job? A sense of pride, but mainly they don’t want to go back to Iraq to do it all over a second time.

What if by this time next year there are only military trainers and advisors in terrorist free and democratic Iraq.

Hog Wild on March 21, 2008 at 7:50 PM

Then we certainly won’t have to worry about a genocide in Iraq, unless the democratic majority in Iraq wants one.

MB4 on March 21, 2008 at 6:56 PM

I like your 2:10 pm post, but sure I am following you here?

You don’t think we are on the cusp of real political change in Iraq? Sadr saying public he has failed to purge Iraq of the “invaders” being one of the latest indicators of the changes needed to bring Iraq togather, Sadr was a divider.

What if this year is the year it all comes togather? The threat of Surrender in Chief Clinton or Obama getting elected might be just the thing that lights the fire under the keysters of the Iraqi “leaders” and get something real done. What if by this time next year there are only military trainers and advisors in terrorist free and democratic Iraq.

You think Iraqi’s want us gone? Yes and no I think. My predition is, there will be a treaty between the U.S. in Iraq, something along the lines of NATO.

Americans don’t like to fail

They also don’t like to “buy a pig in a poke”, nor do they like to hear for 5 years, “the check is in the mail”.

and they don’t like to abandon people to terrorists and genocide.

There are not enough Al Q in Iraq to do a genocide as estimates of AQI range from several hundred to a couple of thousand. The only way there could be a genocide is if large numbers of Shiites genocide the Sunnis of visa versa. If they hate each other that much how can they be building a nation together?

I give up with the WMD thing. I always swear I will never get distracted into endless, meaningless battles here.

dave742 on March 21, 2008 at 3:33 PM

Translation: “I’m getting my ass kicked, so better quit.”

Here are some other results that the WSJ did not include:
Did the US make a mistake in sending troops to Iraq?
Yes: 59%, No: 39%

Did the Bush Administration Deliberately Mislead the US public about WMD in Iraq:
Yes: 53%, No: 42%

dave742 on March 21, 2008 at 11:13 AM

LOL! Cherry picking ONE poll doesn’t make it “fact”. Especially since the last time they asked the same question was 5 years ago, and since NO other poll has asked the same question. 2 Congressional investigations have already cleared Bush of this charge, anyway.

And since all of the Democrats in 1998 were also claiming that Saddam had WMDs, your desperation is duly noted.

Please try again.

“all the lying I’ve seen on the Iraq war comes from the opponents of it. The lie usually starts with accusing Bush of lying, and goes downhill from there”

I guess you have not read this thread:

“I supported and still support the Iraq expedition…However, if I had been asked whether or not the Administration deliberately misled the public regarding WMDs in Iraq, I would, reluctantly, have to say that it did.” -CK MacLeod

I guess you have now seen otherwise.

I was quite sure you wouldn’t be able to stop with accusing Bush of lying once.

Frankly, I don’t really waste a lot of time on this. Your belief that President Bush lied is not based on fact or careful weighing of evidence, and no facts or evidence will change your mind. I don’t know why you bother to quote someone who agrees with your assessment. There’s no shortage of people who agree with that, just like there’s no shortage of people who believe that LBJ killed Kennedy, or 9/11 was an inside job, or FDR let Pearl Harbor be bombed deliberately. That’s not really evidence.

Saying that other people have lied as well is not a defense to those who say that Bush lied. It is true that many Congressmen and Senators lied as well. That does not make me any happier about it. There are, however, 133 Congressmen and 23 Senators that did not vote for the war on Iraq. Not everyone lies.

You do remember my starting statement, that all the lies I’ve seen in this “debate” are repeated by the “Bush lied” crowd. So why are you trying to turn that into a “You are, too” defense?

And why do you equate voting for the war in Iraq to lying, and voting against it into telling the truth?

For the record, Iraq had WMD’s. They used them. That proved they had them. The people who claim that Iraq had no WMD’s are either lying, or just believing someone else’s lies. Sure, you could argue about how much WMD they had, how effective they were, how big of a threat, would Saddam have used them against us, etc. But the “Bush lied” crowd abandons reasonable arguments to stick their fingers in their ears and pretend that Bush just made it all up to get the war he wanted. They won’t settle for saying that the threat of WMD’s from Iraq was not as bad as described. They instead say that Iraq had no WMD’s. It’s intellectually dishonest. In short, it’s lying.

And it’s ironic how much the people who are outraged about how “Bush lied” tell huge whoppers themselves.

I did not believe it. Just about everyone I know did not believe it. Most of the media that I read did not belive it. Most people outside the US did not believe it. Please don’t extrapolate what you and your friends might believe to the “rest of the world.”

Iraq used WMD’s, so the people who thought they didn’t have them were wrong. Sorry if that includes you, your friends, most of the media that you read, and most of the people outside the U.S. But since most intelligence agencies in the world believed that Saddam had WMD’s, I think you’re overstating the case considerably. Since Saddam went to great lengths to get the world to believe that he had huge stockpiles of them, it’s ironic that you want to just accuse all the people who studied their best available intelligence and concluded that Saddam had them of just being liars.

“he used chemical weapons against the Kurds”

When this event happened, the US was supporting Iraq.

Hardly. Like Kissinger said at the time, it was a pity they couldn’t both lose.

For this reason, at the time they said it was both Iraq and Iran that was responsible.

So they only blamed Iraq and Iran both because we were supporting Iraq? Not because, maybe, both sides were at fault in the war? Not only is that unconvincing, it’s a completely irrelevant point. I didn’t mention Saddam using WMD’s to assign blame in that war, but to point out that his use of them proved he had them.

When they need justification for attacking Iraq, the US changed their mind and decided that it was only Saddam that was responsible. When the US decides to attack Iran, maybe they will change their mind again and blame Iran for Halabja. Then you can write in a thread how moral it was for the US to attack Iran because of what they did in Halabja.

dave742 on March 21, 2008 at 2:46 PM

It was Saddam that used the chemical weapons. Don’t fret: Iran had their share of atrocities, such as sending children through minefields to clear the way for their soldiers. But that’s not really relevant to a discussion of WMD’s.

Again, the use of WMD’s was not justification for the war, the fact that he had them, had used them in the past, and was considered likely to use them in the future WAS relevant.

As for your final paragraph, let me compliment you on your ability to be simultaneously wrong, moralizing, self-righteous, and insulting.

In the meantime, the main holders of US debt are dependent on the US consumer to keep their economies afloat. The last thing that the Chinese – to name one major such holder – can afford to do is to cut off the head of their golden goose (you and me). They might as well shoot their nukes straight up into the air – it would be a lot more efficient way to commit suicide than to make economic war on the USA.

But that’s neither here nor there. I like it better when we were agreeing on Harry Turtledove scenarios for recent history.

CK MacLeod on March 21, 2008 at 4:02 PM

I knew that. What I am saying is that a lot of it is leveraged smoke-and-mirrors. Like Bear Stern’s and Lehman and there like, and that I think that we are likely going into a recession as the highly leveraged house-of-cards comes “unglued”. The dollar is in the crapper and if foreigners start pulling their money, which is keeping our financial system afloat, out, we are scroomed. My examples were not the best for that maybe.

In a $13.1 Trillion economy, the ongoing costs of the Iraq war are close to trivial. In addition, pell-mell withdrawal would incur short-term higher costs than mere maintenance or a more drawn-out de-escalation.

CK MacLeod on March 21, 2008 at 3:38 PM

Much of that 13.1 trillion is smoke-and-mirrors.

Just a smattering of examples:

July 05, 2007
$5 Trillion in Housing Wealth Gone: The Impact of the Housing Bubble Bursting.

Much more than $5 trillion by now.

The Fed is spending hundreds of billions, and counting, to bail out highly leveraged riverboat gambler financial houses, which are worth only a fraction of what is on their official books.

Fannie and Freddie are essentially bankrupt.

The long term cost of the Iraq war is estimated to be in the trillions.

The list is almost endless.

In a $13.1 Trillion economy, the ongoing costs of the Iraq war are close to trivial. In addition, pell-mell withdrawal would incur short-term higher costs than mere maintenance or a more drawn-out de-escalation.

Unless you’re contemplating a massive reduction in defense spending – something neither Democrat has been urging (to the contrary) – and even if you imagine that the war really would “end” if we just bugged outthere is no meaningful “surrender dividend.” The current Democratic talking points on the economic effects of the war are 99 4/10% pure demagoguery.

Obama’s policy, for instance, would be costlier in the short-term than the current policy, since he promises a significant escalation in Afghanistan and accelerated withdrawal with maintenance of a re-invasion capacity. It’s a complete fantasy, of course.

My bet is that he’d try for a slower de-escalation, and would soon be completely overtaken by events. Probably incur massive deficits while attempting to implement Great Society 2 in order to distract his base from Vietnam 2.

Could make for good TV anyway.

cissm.umd.edu/papers/files/wmdstudy_full.pdf

I will go back to my point concerning the article linked to in this thread. Karl Rove lied in the article. That is my point. Nobody responded to this, and I am done.
I only drink imported beer, so I guess our friendship would not even last until the bartender brought our drinks.

If Bush had not invaded John Kerry would probably have run against him decrying him for that.

So strange to be on the same side as MB4 in an argument – since I’ve taken him to be an isolationist. I’ll put it more generally: If Bush had not taken out Saddam in ‘03, the alternatives would still have been extremely costly, and, in my opinion, would have been, by now or eventually, much more costly than the Iraq war has been.

And while we’re talking alternative history, if Gore had been handed the presidency instead of Bush in ‘00, we’d likely be arguing today about “Gore’s Vietnam” in the Middle East.

B-B-But if we don’t pull out of Iraq, where will Clinton or Obama get the money to pay for their campaign promises?

Kafir on March 21, 2008 at 3:08 PM

Unless Ben’s duct tape holds Americas leveraged house of cards financial system together neither Hillary nor Obama will have enough money to pay for half of all their promises and Juan will not have enough money to keep more than half the number of troops in Iraq.

So what exactly is your position? Is it that when the Democrats brought up WMD, they were lying, but when Bush brought it up, he was telling the truth?

dave742 on March 21, 2008 at 2:59 PM

I think that it is very likely that they all believed it, including most of those who voted against the war. Were they selective in looking at evidence? Sure. All politicians and non politicians do that.

Bush took office with the Democrats already having declared that Saddam had beaucoup WMD. If Bush had not invaded John Kerry would probably have run against him decrying him for that.

Even Saddam thought that he had WMD and he certainly did in the past, if not at the start of the war.

dave742 on March 21, 2008 at 2:59 PM

See my MB4 on March 21, 2008 at 2:57 PM

and my

MB4 on March 21, 2008 at 2:38 PM

BTW, I only drink MicroBrew, none of that Miller of Bud $hit.