Originally Posted by PresentTense Pirate Penske (Post 421831)

My opinion is that they did oversell that one plank, the wmd plank, although there were plenty of dems who were on board with the wmd threat. In my opinion I think they should have attempted to sell the concept of removal on the totality of the circumstances surrounding his dictatorship, oppression of minorities in the region, destabilising affect on a volatile region, threat to israel, continuing to thwart the UN etc etc etc.

If they had, we wouldn't be having the discussion of why we went to war, but we would still be having the discussion of how badly they fucked up the prosecution of the war, and why....ymmv

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 421836)

Your approach would certainly have been better for our collective psyche. Of course, it also probably would have meant no war.

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 421835)

I agree completely with your first paragraph, except as noted below. I half-agree with your second paragraph: That would be the discussion IF WE HAD GONE TO WAR. But that pitch would not have sold Americans on going to war. No way, no how.

On the first: It depends what you mean by "plenty." I've checked and my memory was right -- a majority of dems in Congress voted no on the resolution. And this despite the hammering Dems were taking -- as unAmerican, as terrorist sympathizers, as supporters of genocide, as allies of al Qaeda -- for not supporting the war.

Beyond that, if you look at some of the individual Dems who voted for and against, I think a picture begins to emerge: Dems in heavily-Dem areas tended to vote no. Dems in more mixed areas tended to vote yes. This suggests to me that Dems generally (as opposed to Dems in Congress) were against the war. Barbara Lee of Oakland/Berkeley knew she could vote against. So did Boxer. Dems from the South? Not so much.

I haven't done, and don't plan to do, a complete analysis to support the above, and I'd be interested in hearing what others actually know -- or, in light of the anticipated, customary lack of actual knowledge on this board (other than when RT posts about healt care), what others think in their gut.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 421836)

Your approach would certainly have been better for our collective psyche. Of course, it also probably would have meant no war.

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 421838)

"We've been attacked by al Qaeda. We are fighting a war in Afghanistan as a result. We also think that, after 10 years, it's finally time to invade Iraq and remove Saddam because he has committed atrocious war crimes against the Kurds and Shiites in his country.*"

"

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 421838)

"

*"Fuck no, we don't know who will replace him. Probably some Shiite. I think they like the Iranians. Probably won't be a civil war, though -- these Arabs tend to stick together."

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 421810)

Leaving aside the racism issue (assuming that's possible) -- has anyone actually tried talking to a serious Tea Party person? It's a one-way ticket to Nutsoland. The converastion basically goes like this:

"Obama is the Devil! He has turned the world upside down! Gravity no longer functions on our planet!"
"Um, that's not right. Gravity does function. Here, watch -- I'll drop something. See how it landed?"
"Obama is the Devil! He was supposed to bring change! I knew he was lying!"

Throw in a few references to "socialism" -- with support indicating that speaker has no clue what that word actually means -- and you're there.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 421829)

did you answer the question "why force a war if they didn't believe there was a threat" question? I really want to gathe everyones thoughts.

Originally Posted by PresentTense Pirate Penske (Post 421841)

I think it went beyond that. He was a continuing source of volatility in a volatile unstable region that is strategically important to the industrialised world.

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan (Post 421842)

I have to sit next to the guy next to us at the Texans games from now on or else my boyfriend may come to blows with him. I pretend to not know/care about politics to avoid getting into yet another "sarah palin rocks/obama is driving us to hell" discussion.

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan (Post 421843)

One answer might be that the country had the ever-loving-shit scared out of it by 9-11 and there was a genuine desire to "strike back" to show strength / courage / resolve / revenge. As Afghanistan is a country that is notoriously difficult to fight to a decisive victory in, and as Iraq was a country we had historically kicked ass in, and as Saddam was a recognizable bad guy who did terrible things to his own people and probably would have been happy to nuke / chemical attack / send Anthrax to us if he had the technology and any money, why not declare war on Iraq.

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 421844)

I think he was adequately contained, and that any reasonably anticipated scenario for what followed him was going to be more volatile. I'll note that this was something we argued about endlessly on these boards before the war started.



.

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 421844)

I agree with what you are saying here. But I disagree with what you are implying, or the idea that underlies your statement: Namely, that the question of "what comes next, after we remove Saddam?" is really just part of the "back end." Remember the Powell Doctrine: the exit strategy is key. And in a war directed at regime change, what you are changing to is a critical part of the exit strategy.

In other words, the failure was not just in the execution of the plan, or the back end. It was the failure to have a realistic plan to start with. "Kill Saddam and a democracy will bloom, followed by a wave of democracy that sweeps across the Middle East" isn't a plan, it's a fantasy.

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 421845)

I'm guessing he finds it easy to accept that you don't know much about this stuff, since you're a chick and all.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 421797)

I think Spanky should be in jail, like the one tom Cruise movie where you go away for thought crime.

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan (Post 421842)

I have to sit next to the guy next to us at the Texans games from now on or else my boyfriend may come to blows with him. I pretend to not know/care about politics to avoid getting into yet another "sarah palin rocks/obama is driving us to hell" discussion.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 421808)

Fair enough. But since their complaints are almost completely specious ("My taxes are higher!" No they're not. "Obama is a foreigner!" No he isn't. "What he's doing is like what Hitler did!" No it fucking isn't), I have to draw some kind of conclusion on why they're spending so much time with such unbelievable hate on this bullshit. So, you can feel free to give them the benefit of the doubt. I'm not so generous.

I won't deny that this is part of it. But, again, I disagree as to how much. Are Palin, Fox and Limbaugh, etc., fanning the flames and creating this crap? Or are they playing to what people want to hear? You can't get people to break away from television to do ANYTHING in this country. You're telling me that all these people show up to these rallies because they're mad about healthcare and their (lower under Obama) taxes? Nah. I don't think so.

TM