A Stupid War: Come Clean & Aim To Make Amends

from JoeUser Forums

I am as equally tired of hearing that there were no WMDs as I am hearing “well, no, but there was still the intent” as though that were sufficient “findings” to justify war. The entire area of discussion is bogus because what’s done is done, and we’re stuck with a tragic blunder that needs remedying. I had written at the outset of the preëmptive strike that it was pure shock and awe brouhaha because the UN was always at war, led by Clinton’s sporadic bombings of Iraq and countering the periodic no-fly zone anti-aircraft attacks from Saddam.

Had the Bush administration continued the Clinton strategic bombardment to take out the regime with the aid of Gen. Zinni’s Desert Fox strategy, there would have been no global perception of irrational, paranoid action, along with the global opinion that we in an act of vengeance diverted attention from the war on terror. Further, with the 9/11 license to get even tougher, particularly since Bush even before 9/11 considered Iraq as the greater threat in the “axis of evil,” he could have simply engaged in aggressive diplomacy by insisting on reviving the inspections, and clamping down on “oil for food” corruption.

Again: what’s done is done; we must, however, unravel the damage done by admitting to impulsiveness that caused much heartbreak and to pledge a global tact by inviting heretofore rejected nations to help alleviate this interim problem so we can again concentrate on terrorism by Muslim renegades threatening the globe.

Copyright © 2004 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: October 20, 2004.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com

politics
6,427 views 18 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
We never diverted attention from the "War on Terror." All that was accomplished by invading Iraq under the context of fighting terrorism" is spreading the disease of terrorism. At this point also, simply admitting that the U.S. was wrong and trying to work things out on say a diplomatic sense would never amount to anything. America screwed itself with this war because we made a laughing stock of ourselves, created more terrorists, that now we must fight, because of the war on terror, and split this country down the middle. This war, simply put, fucked us all.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
This war, simply put, fucked us all.
Gross, but profoundly appropriate!
Multiplicity - Control multiple PCs using one keyboard and mouse
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Good post, stevendedalus.

"This war, simply put, fucked us all."

Blunt, but at least somewhat accurate. I think there are ways to improve the situation in Iraq, and shape some of negative consequences of that war, but it's going to be hard work. Hard work.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think there are ways to improve the situation in Iraq, and shape some of negative consequences of that war, but it's going to be hard work. Hard work.
But will four more years of the same change anything? Thanks.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #5 By: stevendedalus - 10/20/2004 4:01:33 PM
I think there are ways to improve the situation in Iraq, and shape some of negative consequences of that war, but it's going to be hard work. Hard work.
But will four more years of the same change anything? Thanks.


And you know for a fact that it won't change?
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
As the marines used to say I don't have a crystal ball up my arse. But the same old strategy without revision might not work.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply #7 By: stevendedalus - 10/20/2004 4:12:18 PM
As the marines used to say I don't have a crystal ball up my arse. But the same old strategy without revision might not work.


You do state "might not" work. So is it a possibility then that it could work?
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
You do state "might not" work. So is it a possibility then that it could work?


Four more years of the Bush administraion could work, but it must be known that it will not work. How can you fix something that is wrong, if you won't admit that it needs fixing. Bush does not admit that his choices for the war were wrong, so in turn he assumes that everything is going as planned and in another turn, will not change the way that he is handling things. That is why we are in the mess we are in. If he took a completely different approach to the situation it might work. But he won't do that. So no, it can not work.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
There has been an open invitation for other countries to come and help. France for instance has politely refused.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
France for instance has politely refused.
That's because Bush asked; it would be different with Kerry.
So is it a possibility then that it could work?
Semantics? Anything is possible even with aimless "hard work" but should that be the rule?
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Didn't France say it wouldn't help even if Kerry were President?
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Didn't France say it wouldn't help even if Kerry were President?
Yes, but Chirac is not fool enough to announce his preference in the midst of our election. Myrr: glad you feel better.LOL
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #11 By: stevendedalus - 10/20/2004 10:11:03 PM
France for instance has politely refused.
That's because Bush asked; it would be different with Kerry.


Wrong answer. France has stated categorically and to the world that it will *not* help no matter who wins the election. Nice try, but try again.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Even if France and Germany sent a token force to the stable areas of Iraq, would that really help much? And that's probably the best case scenario.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
None on the anti war countries are ever likely to help in the current situation no matter who is president. They refuse point blank to put their troops under a US command that they believe invaded another country illegally.

What France, Germany, India, Indonesia and Russia have all stated was that they would consider sending troops to a UN led peace keeping mission. Indeed this is what they asked for immediately after the invasion and the US snubbed them as it felt it had everything under control and no intention of relinquishing control.

So for Bush (or Kerry) to obtain significant numbers of foreign troops they would need to relinguish command and pass the entire mission over to the UN. I can;t see Bush ever doing that and I'm not sure Kerry would do that either.

Paul.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #17 By: Solitair - 10/21/2004 3:55:46 PM
None on the anti war countries are ever likely to help in the current situation no matter who is president. They refuse point blank to put their troops under a US command that they believe invaded another country illegally.

What France, Germany, India, Indonesia and Russia have all stated was that they would consider sending troops to a UN led peace keeping mission. Indeed this is what they asked for immediately after the invasion and the US snubbed them as it felt it had everything under control and no intention of relinquishing control.

So for Bush (or Kerry) to obtain significant numbers of foreign troops they would need to relinguish command and pass the entire mission over to the UN. I can;t see Bush ever doing that and I'm not sure Kerry would do that either.

Paul.


For once I have to agree with you on this. Neither one would do so willingly!
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Even if France and Germany sent a token force to the stable areas of Iraq, would that really help much? And that's probably the best case scenario.
You're probably right.
So for Bush (or Kerry) to obtain significant numbers of foreign troops they would need to relinguish command and pass the entire mission over to the UN. I can;t see Bush ever doing that and I'm not sure Kerry would do that either.
Yeah, that's a tough one, all right.