Bush's speech last night.

[DanS]

Well, they did have a plan, but they didn't have any Plan Bs. We won a very swift victory and there weren't the problems that we expected (refugees, food and health crisis). We incorrectly expected to have some time to plan according to the circumstances.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DanS
Well, they did have a plan, but they didn't have any Plan Bs. We won a very swift victory and there weren't the problems that we expected (refugees, food and health crisis). We incorrectly expected to have some time to plan according to the circumstances.

I must bow to you here. You are correct.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by DanS
Well that was the problem and is a principled objection. If there was a good post war plan, you still would have had that problem.

If you have a good post-war plan, you have a credible alternative to Saddam. If you don't have a credible alternative to Saddam, there isn't any point wasting lives taking him out if the default replacement is as bad or worse or results in a quagmire of political mess and Afghanistanesque warlord infighting. Without a good reconstruction plan, it'd be like solving a bee's nest with a hammer. ie. Dont.

[MrFun]

Look, whatever Caveman Bush says, just believe him, no questions asked, ok?

[Imran Siddiqui]

In other words, it's better to spread violence, death, and destruction in your neck of the woods so we can be safe and comfie in ours.

ie, American foreign policy.

Seriously, hasn't this usually been the case (without the bombastics). Better to fight proxy wars overseas than to have the US suffer a direct attack during the Cold War, etc.

Good idea by Bush to go over Congress' heads directly to the people, but Bush is no Reagan, I'm not sure how well this will work (FYI, the most successful 'Going over the head' tactic was when Reagan went on TV and convinced the American people to pass his tax cuts, who promptly badgered their Congressment turning a defeat into a huge victory for the new President).

[oedo]

Laugh all you want, but your reaction is exactly why Dems will lose 2004. Even with 9-11 and 3,000 dead Americans, you still don't realize how dangerous terrorism is.

Why do you think there are FOREIGN terrorist groups in Iraq trying to blow up American and even UN facilities? Because the terrorists know that if they can push American forces out of Iraq, and Iraq falls back into tyranny, then they wil be able to use Iraq for their purposes. On the other hand, if the US succeeds in stabilizing Iraq, then the terrorists lose a potential ally.

That is why winning in Iraq is so crucial and why it is most definitely part of the war on terror. If Iraq is stable and free, it will an ally of the US, but if Iraq slides back into tyranny, it will be a potential ally of terrorists.

you just stated a reason why civil state´s building is necessary in Iraq. but this doesn´t answer my question. you mentioned 9-11 and 3000 dead Americans. but you failed in explaining, why the the attack on Iraq was necessary because of that. there hasn´t been found a link between saddam and al queda, yet. and there won´t be found a link for a simple reason: there is none!
you just mix up two events which have nothing at all to do with each other. Bush is doing the same thing. the terror in Iraq is a consequence of the war. it´s illegitimate to justify a war with the consequences only the war itself has caused. the war in Iraq didn´t prevent terror. contrary, wars like the one in Iraq cause terrorism. and even with 9-11 and 3.000 dead Americans, you still don't seem to realize how dangerous terrorism is.

[chequita guevara]

3,000 Americans did not die because of the 9/11 massacre. Some of those people (not including the murderers) were not Americans.

[Jac de Molay]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

In other words, it's better to spread violence, death, and destruction in your neck of the woods so we can be safe and comfie in ours.

ie, American foreign policy.

Seriously, hasn't this usually been the case (without the bombastics). Better to fight proxy wars overseas than to have the US suffer a direct attack during the Cold War, etc.

Except the difference is that this is carried out based on the notion of perceived threats vs. the very real threats posed by communist expansion.

And judging by the rock-solid intelligence that we relied on in pursuing this venture, I have a hard time advocating this doctrine in any future pursuits. Simply pointing the finger and saying "you're a threat" is a shady case for war.

[Ramo]

Well, they did have a plan, but they didn't have any Plan Bs. We won a very swift victory and there weren't the problems that we expected (refugees, food and health crisis). We incorrectly expected to have some time to plan according to the circumstances.

We might've had a plan, but we certainly didn't have a well-thought out plan, nor one subject to public debate and scrutiny. Shrub's "plan" (or to be more precise, Rummy and Wolfie's plan) consisted of taking out Saddam and putting Chalabi in his place, and hoping that he could maintain authority over Iraq - and to hell with the very substantial objections from the intelligence community.

[MrFun]

learn to quote, Jac

[Japher]

Bush gave a speech last night?

He should of given it at half time.

Was the speech before or after the Texans beat the Dolphins?

[Q Classic]

we're not in a war of survival against the terrorists.
we're in a war of survival against the dry rot of party politics that is ruining our country far more thoroughly and effectively than any angry muslim ever could with a jumbo jet.

we've had twelve years of botched party politics and nothing but sabotage against our country by both the democrats and the republicans.

i'm not scared of an angry muslim. i don't see why we should be. they're a threat, yes, but they're not as dark or as insidious, wolves in sheeps clothing like our great president, his predecessor, and everybody under the capitol's magnificent rotunda.

but don't worry, american will trudge along, as it always will. i'm just pissed that my generation be stuck with the massive bill that the baby boomers have run up.

===

you're right, it's a piss poor reason not to go to war just because you don't have a good exit strategy.

however, it's a piss poor way to run a war and win a peace.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Except the difference is that this is carried out based on the notion of perceived threats vs. the very real threats posed by communist expansion.

One (such as che or pick-a-Eurcom ) can easily say that many of our proxy wars during the Cold War were against 'percieved' threats as well, such as Chile, Nicaragua, etc.

[Jules]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Its obvious the diplomat's posts are on the same childish level as Bush's speech.

Major powers won't help the Bush Administration for one simple reason. It's good their operation is failing. It will teach America a lesson about the perils of unilateralism.

If the Bush Administration loses power as a result, so much the better. It has few international friends and is a threat to world peace and stability. The Bush Administration is a far bigger threat than terrorism.

I agree with that, Horse, except I think that if the rest of the world allows the US to become isolated, it becomes an even greater danger.

[GePap]

The speech was classic Bush: well writen and presented, ful of "stirring and memorable phrases", consistent in making the claims the admin. makes, and in the end, empty and meaningless and very short on the truth.

Bush could claim accurately that the war in Afghanistan was a serious blow to Al Qaeda (It's a war on Al Qaeda, NOT terrorism for the millionth time). The War in Iraq was not a war of necessity, did nothing to weaken Al Qaeda or lower its capabiities and has not made American one iota safer. t is the result of the Democratic Domino theory of the neo-cons, with their Trotskyte belief in the eternal revolution (Capitalist this time) and our need to export it. Sadly, this idea is as usefull as the original domino theory was.