In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:

No, it's not debatable, it's impossible to show that the war
prevented another attack.

I keep agreeing with that, but that was one of the stated goals, and it
has so far been true.

But it could just as easily be explained by dumb luck. If you want
to justify a war that is killing human beings you need something more
concrete than sheer luck.
Your justification that we haven't been attacked again isn't
necessarily wrong, but it's nowhere near good enough either. And I
haven't seen any other compelling justifications either.

That's why nobody has been able to show it
aside from repeating it again and again in the hopes it'll be accepted
as fact by enough people.

And nobody has been able to show there are no WMD in Iraq. "We can't
find them because we gave him time to hide them" doesn't equal "They
aren't there".

That has nothing to do with what I was saying as far as I can tell.

They decided on a different tactic - dissolve and reform - rather than
the known ineffective one of stand & fight & die that they used last
time. Seems more effective this time.

We've hired most of his military. The guys running around causing
the most trouble are mostly too young to have been in Saddam's military,
and a great many have come from outside of Iraq. I don't think it's his
military that's kicking our asses.
And that still doesn't explain the lack of equipment.

BTW, Saddam isn't building the IEDs that are being used now. Saddam
had control up until we invaded, so whatever has gone on since isn't
relevant to what Saddam was doing.

Saddam isn't all of his organization, just as OBL isn't all of _his_.

Then I take it you might agree with me that the big push to capture
Saddam was nothing more than a PR show? That's another massive red flag
in this war: landmark events. They build up as if the next mission will
fix everything and when it doesn't, they pick a new one. THey've been
flailing lately, but they seem to have settled on the formation of a
solid police force (or simply X number of police trained) as the goal.

Yeah, I got to where I was only logging on to keep my dudes from
expiring, then I didn't even keep up with that. Once my favorite
sorceress (Amee: level 93 or 94) went poof I had pretty much no urge to
bother any more.

Well, it was a good game for a while but the 1.10 delays were
frustrating, and once it finally came out it was underwhelming. I think
that's the point where I kind of said "screw it".

Yeah, 1.10 also hosed my Exploda-Bob build. That an all of the
super-lame builds I enjoyed making for the sheer hell of it became
overpowered after that patch. It just wasn't the same game anymore.
Besides, by the time it came around I was past the stage where I was
content to level on my own until someone showed up, so new chars were
more of a hassle than a joy.

Well, she came and went from time to time, didn't she? Seemed like a
pretty level-headed person, good moderating influence for the kiddies in
the group.

Agreed. I used to talk with her pretty regularly on AIM. Good
therapy.

I also like how she could come in and do the "mom" thing if the group
got a bit too rambunctious.

Yeah, every NG needs a mom in it.

9/11 is a blip pretty far off the main line. If you want to set your
threshold as high as that, OK, there's been no terrorism in the world,
ever, except 9/11.

I also didn't say that. We were promised events which would dwarf 9/11.
Rhetoric, certainly, but the fact that they clearly have the desire, and
have been denied the means, is a good thing. I can think of a dozen
things off the top of my head which would be worse, so the absence of
followup can't be from lack of ideas or from lack of desires. That
leaves "opportunity".

Or lack of need. The stated goal of OBL was to start a war with the
west and now he's got it.

Well, to be honest, I'd rather that the terrorists are fighting and
dying in Iraq, than that they were doing the same in the US. Spain was
done specifically to change the outcome of their elections, and sadly,
it worked. London, I'm not sure has been linked to AQ yet; the chemist
they arrested allegedly has no ties, unless something has changed in the
last 24-48 hours since I looked at it.

It doesn't matter who was behind the attacks. It only matters that
they happened. The "War on Terror" didn't work.

OK, so he lied. BFD--dictators lie all the time, it's par for the
course. If we went and invaded every dictatorship that lied at a cost
of $1.25billion per week, we'd be hopelessly swamped with warfare and
debt before making a dent.

Well, maybe we should just pick the ones who, you know, have been at war
with us previously, and who are likely to have weapons that we don't
want used against us. Oh, and let's just do the winnable ones.

We'd still be broke, as we are now.

Also, North Korea fits that description, but we've done nothing. If
we're trying to send a message, we've hosed it royally.

Well, better that he screw up in Iraq than with N. Korea, I think. I
wonder; if war does get re-started there, given that there was never a
peace treaty, does the US need a declaration of war, or does the
original, never revoked one still stand? It's still just a truce, after
all.

I also don't condone a war on a technicality.

For that matter, was there ever a peace treaty after GW1?

Yeah, Saddam was to destroy his weapons. The evidence we've found so
far indicates that he did that. The speculation and general assumption
so far has been the opposite for some odd reason.

The shells that we were hit with were old, according to the reports
about them.

Yes, but they are a non-zero example of WMD in Iraq, and are dismissed
out of hand.

Bush's latest excuse for the war is that Saddam had WMD development
programs. Old, decayed shells don't prove that there was active
development of weaponry recently. Of course, bush gave so many reasons
both before and after the war which one is real (if any) is anyone's
guess.

The most plausible explanation I've heard so far is that
they were duds dug up at a test range and incorporated into IEDs--the
assemblers thinking they were conventional weaponry.

But they're examples of WMD that were there, and were not destroyed, and
were not accounted for. That's just the alleged "innocent mistakes";
what about the ones that we gave him years to hide, either inside or
outside the country?

What about them? We sure as hell haven't secured them, so this war
is a failure by that measure also. We do know at least that when Saddam
was in power he had no motivation to use them, and after we started the
invasion he had all of the motivation in the world, yet still didn't
fire.
Could be that he didn't have anything to fire at us.

It amazes me that a guy who supposedly was such a terrible leader he
couldn't provide electricity

Well, that was by his choice, not by his inability.

How do you know this?

was also skilled enough to completely hide
all evidence of WMD development and go so far as to create a body of
evidence that would fool the inspectors into believing he had just let
his WMD programs rot. There seems to be a strong dichotomy there.

His priorities were on weapons, not his people. Seems pretty clear
to me?

He ran the country for 30 years. He must have done something right
along the way. A leader eventually has to tend to his people in order
to remain in power.

them. AQ's presence in Iraq seems to back this theory up.

AQ was in the US on 9/11. Does that make AQ and the US allies?

Of course not. What's your point?

That your assumption was illogical.

Apparenly they're also allies with Spain and Britain.

I recognize and reject your failed rhetorical tactic.

And what tactic would that be?

AQ's presence in Iraq does not seem to back your theory up any more
than it backs the notion that AQ, the US, Spain, and Britain are in
cahoots.

(shrug) OK, whatever. They're there, fighting against us, with some
Iraqis. My point was that they could work together against us, and the
rest of that point is "Good thing we kept them from getting the WMD".

How do you know we kept them from getting any WMD? You claim both
that they existed and that they were never destroyed, and acknowledge
that we haven't found them. That sounds extremely not like we kept them
away from anyone other than the US and her allies.

Whoopie. Hey, Clinton got us through a few years without any attacks
on US soil, but you don't call that a success. Why is it not success
for Clinton, but it would be success for Bush?

Well, during Clinton things kept getting worse, and he went from
objecting, to objecting strongly, to objecting very strongly, to blowing
up a tent and two camels. This weak response is, I feel, what made the
escalation happen.

IIRC, there was one terrorist attack on US soil in Clinton's time,
(WTC, 2/26/1993) and there has been one during Bush's time.

AQ was attacking US interests around the world on an increasing level
during Clinton's administration. USS Cole, and all those. Since
Clinton didn't respond to those other than in "objecting most strongly",
he showed the weakess that was then the cause of AQ deciding to get more
aggressive and attack us here. Weak response=event here. Strong
response=event elsewhere. I prefer them elsewhere.

Cole was not on US soil. Is your standard attacks on US soil, or
attacks anywhere? It seems to be that attacks on any scale anywhere
during Clinton's term make Clinton a failure, while any attacks of any
size during Bush's term either don't count or were successfully
addressed since we haven't had another on US soil since the last one.
THAT is a double standard and THAT is all I've ever seen to justify
the endless bashing of Clinton from the conservatives. Push your
standards as high as they need to be for Clinton to fall short, then
push them as low as possible to excuse anything and everything from Bush.
I remain deeply unimpressed.

Pretty much any country that has been pounded, threatened, and left
flared up into a problem all over again. Like Germany after WWI and
into WWII. After WWII we decided to be more charitable and reward the
chunk of the population that would listen to us. They, on their own,
squeezed out the chunk of the population that wouldn't listen.

That's what I'm _saying_. Here's some help, the rest is up to you.

I don't view this war as "help." How is it even our place to help
them by force?

This "last ditch" has been going on for two years now. I think at
some point it's safe to assume it's a

I'm sure it's the military which "ran away". And I'm not sure either of
us know if it's getting better, or worse, really.

I know there are more casualties per week this week than a few weeks
ago.

True. Maybe we should draw a line in the sand.

We should have a long time ago. Bush didn't then, didn't today, and
won't tomorrow.

But is that acceptable? I know they both said it, but I think both
of them are goddamned fools. I believe Kerry was just saying it because
he thought he could win by doing so, and Bush said it because that's
what he plans to do. But I don't think it's acceptable.

Well, what alternative is there at this point?

I don't know. I am only arguing that this war was a ****up. Does
the lack of alternatives make it acceptable?

As long as Bush is in charge I'll hold him responsible for the
actions he takes--regardless of who his inspiration was. Bush ordered
this war, bush started this war, and Bush is keeping it going.

And so many democrats made the same justifications, and voted to
authorize the military action.

Do they hand out the orders to the military? That's my threshold in
this case.

Yeah. If I successfully bash the democrats, nothing
changes--everyone bashes the democrats and they're out of power anyway.
OTOH, successfully bashing the republicans will get them tossed out of
office and there's a possibility that things will change as a result.

"Do something, anything"? I submit that sometimes "nothing" is a better
course of action than the wrong "something".

Does that also apply to starting this war?

It's not certain, but it's possible. And with a guy like Dean in charge
of the party it's even more likely that any new democrats who get
elected will be anti-war.
When you played king of the hill, who did you push? The guy on top,
or the guy who just fell off?

Maybe figuring out how to work with whoever is on top might be a plan?
I sure as hell didn't like, respect, or trust Clinton, but that didn't
mean I was trying to push him down.

You sure do like holding him responsible for terrorist attacks on the
US. And how am I to work with those in power if they won't listen to
me? I'm not a preacher or a billionaire. I wasn't even allowed to
attend any Bush speeches simply to listen back when I lived a stone's
throw from Crawford.
Bush is a chicken****.

The quotes put them in charge of the military? Explain to me how
this amazing process works.

Both sides said he had WMD, and both sides voted to authorize the
military. That's my point. The quotes show this.

OK, both sides voted for this. Do both sides give the military their
orders?

Um, by authorizing military action, yes they do.

Bull****. That authorization gave the President the authority to
start a war. It gave no orders or guidelines to the military WRT troop
strength, distribution, placement, equipment, anything.
I take it your real answer is "No"?

I doubt it, too. This whole country showed how ****ing stupid it was
in 2004.

The choice was between two less than ideal options.

That does not make us not look like idiots to the rest of the world.

I mean, if you're driving down the road like a nut, kids
in the back seat cheering you on, when you get pulled over, do you
expect the cop to give the kids tickets too? No, that wouldn't make any
sense.

And yet, pretending that they were telling the driver not to do it would
be lying. It'd also be lying to pretend that, if they were driving,
they wouldn't have done the same thing.

I'm not pretending the democrats didn't authorize it, I'm just saying
that I don't give a ****. Yes, the democrats in congress were a bunch
of ****ing morons for supporting this war. But they do not have any
control over it at this point, so why do you feel the need to stress the
point? Do you think spreading out the blame a bit will unkill some
civilians? Or unkill a few servicemen? I kind of doubt that.

Yeah, the democrats in congress agreed with the war for whatever
moronic reason, but they're not in charge of it. They can't add a few
more troops here and there, they can't set any deadlines, they can't
even force the Pentagon to armor plate their vehicles.

Do you really, really want to go there?

No. I didn't want to go in many of the places this thread has gone.
But here we are.

The good news is that the courts here in Texas are looking into
overturning that new map since it was strong-armed into law by a bunch
of guys who got elected with illegal corporate money.
Maybe we'll even string up DeLay.

I'm not sure that I'd see that as a problem.

What is "that" referring to in the above? What the republicans did,
or undoing what the republicans did?

I'd have to disagree. After all, we were discussing above us
threatening Iraq "We'll come back if you screw up again."

That's not bullying, that's a "behave and don't be a problem for us any
more or we'll prevent you, again, from getting out of hand". Threat?
Yeah, I guess so. But not bullying.

Iraq was out of hand how?

Attacking us here is easy. Attacking us there is hard. They just
don't need to attack us over here. Think about it--their goal with the
9/11 attack was split several ways: show us that they could manipulate
us with an attack, hurt us financially, and start a fight. Now that
we're in Iraq and stuck there, they've succeeded in starting a fight,
hurting us financially, and proving they could manipulate us.

If getting the snot bombed out of their country and the country of an
uneasy ally is "manipulating us", I suppose. Odd goal to have, though,
getting invaded.

They wanted a war. Yeah, odd goal, but mission accomplished all the
same. And as far as I've seen this whole "ally" thing between Saddam
and OBL is completely made up. Absolutely not a shred of justification
anywhere except guesstimations from the back-seat drivers.

Attacking us again would be pretty redundant. And keep in mind that
if they want to make a statement, their target audience is in the Middle
East, not the US. Any attack on us in Iraq gets all over the news in
the Middle East, where their support base is, whereas an attack on the
US would get on US news along with Middle East news. More news
coverage, but not really worth the effort.

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying, or if I am following it, that
I agree.

My point was that attacking again in the US would be a waste of
effort. They already have the war they wanted, and they're winning the
PR battle in the Middle East, which is where they want to win it. They
don't really give much of a **** about the US's opinion beyond egging us
into a war.

All three of us were mutual enemies. Who's to say Saddam wouldn't
have sided with the US against AQ as quickly as he would have sided with
AQ against the US?

Well, we have been at war with him, and he's more likely to save face
with the Muslim world by siding with a Muslim in a conflict, no?

He was completely secular and only seemed to be interested in running
Iraq before we invaded. I don't see any motivation anywhere to risk
annihilation by attacking the US simply to "save face." OBL didn't have
palaces to get bombed, but Saddam did.
It isn't as if anyone really expected Saddam to win a fight against
the US.

Besides that, it's a lot easier to take on AQ within
your won country than it is to take on another country half way around
the world.

I'd rather they stay over there, thank you very much.

I was talking about Saddam taking on AQ within Iraq vs. Saddam
attacking the US for whatever stupid reason.

AQ is a presence in Iraq because it's a war zone. Those assholes
wanted a war with the US for years, and now they've got one.

Well, let's kill as many of them as we can, over there, so we don't have
to do it over here then.

Do you know that killing as many of them as possible over there won't
just manufacture even more? We've been slaying a whole lot of
insurgents (seem to be a kind of catch-all category these days) in Iraq,
yet their numbers keep increasing.

They were alive, but they weren't figuring out how to kill our
military.

I'm not so sure of that.

Who in Iraq attacked the US prior to the invasion?

You said "figuring out", not "attacking".

So is this another case of assuming the worst in the absence of any
proof either way in order to justify a war?
Who in Iraq was planning how to kill us prior to the invasion?

I'm saying it shouldn't have happened, the guys to caused it are
****ups, and I have no faith that they'll turn this from a ****up into
anything measurably better than a complete failure.

Well, the US hasn't been attacked again, and no further attacks on the
scale of 9/11 have happened, so I think we're making progress.

OK, if your sufficiently selective, yes, the "WAR ON TERROR!" has
been a success. But if you broaden your horizons a bit, it's a failure.
An expensive, deadly failure.

If the US is doing the bulk of the work, and getting more benefit than
the others, well, the others could pitch in a bit more. Do I care if
we're not protecting, say, France? Not especially.

We have the bulk of the military casualties. In fact our military
casualties outnumber both Spain and England's terrorist attack victim
casualties AND military casualties. I don't think we're coming out
ahead in this.

--
B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail dot net
http://web2.airmail.net/thegoat4/