On 5 Mar 2006 11:53:43 -0800, "Arbusto Harken"
<arbusto_harken@usa.com> wrote:

B1ackwater wrote:

On 3 Mar 2006 11:56:39 -0800, "Arbusto Harken"
<arbusto_harken@usa.com> wrote:

B1ackwater wrote:

On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 13:16:46 -0500, "Moon-Monkey" <M-M@aol.com> wrote:

U.S. Commander Says Iraq Crisis Has Passed
Mar 03 10:56 AM US/Eastern
By LOLITA C. BALDOR
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON

The top U.S. military commander in Iraq said Friday it appears the crisis
has passed as violence spawned by the bombing of a sacred mosque there
continued with yet another deadly day.

While Gen. George Casey said anything can happen, he downplayed suggestions
the country is headed for civil war.

"Now, it appears that the crisis has passed," Casey said

A disappointment for libs I'm sure ...

However we all know that NEW violence will be stirred-up
within days. There are many entities who want a civil war
and by hook or by crook they're gonna GET one.

Actually, it would be kind of a GOOD thing for America
and "W". We can't HANDLE an all-out civil war - it would
take five or ten times as many soldiers to suppress such
a large-scale event. We can't DO that - financially or
politically. Ergo, in case of civil war, we BAIL OUT.

You must be one of them there cut and runners.

Be sensible ... there ARE times when it's better to
just cut your losses and scoot ...

Aww, "just scoot". It sounds so innocent and harmless doesn't it? Why
don't you call it what it really is.., abandoning them after we
devastated their country and handing their fate over to a bunch of
radical factions who will kill them wantonly for decades to come?

Radical factions mostly OF THEIR *OWN* CREATION. They
wanted to be "free" - well, now they are.

Freedom isn't
necessarily SAFE or PEACEFUL. The problems in Iraq were
created by Iraqis, not us.
There's only just so much we
can do to persuade Iraqis to act like good Americans -
and it isn't enough.

We can do it in good conscience,

Except for the fact that people were trying to tell you this was going
to happen.

It was one of the possibilities - but hardly a certain one.

It was a hell of a lot more certain than the remote possibility that we
would be greeted as liberators and set off a chain reaction of
democracy throughout the Middle East.

Well, actually, we WERE greeted as liberators - by 95% anyway.
Even the sunni were willing to give it a chance. Problem is
that 5% can totally screw-up the whole deal if the other 95%
LET 'em. Guess what, the other 95% LET 'em. Apathy has a price.
Iraq is going to pay that price for the next decade.

Oh yea, eliminating Saddam and the Baath was the primary goal
of the war - turning Iraq into Mayberry would have been nice
but it wasn't really NECESSARY so long as the Saddamites were
out of the picture, out of everyones hair.

Saddam was rapidly
rehabilitating his image, becoming "The Hero Who Defied America",
and we couldn't HAVE that. No way were we gonna risk having him
more involved in mid-east politics and economics.

You might get hit by a bus next time you cross the street, so
does that mean you should never cross the street ?

A very weak analogy. A more acurate one would be crossing the street
without looking, without listening, with a crowd of people yelling
"LOOK OUT, THERE IS A BUS COMING!" and you just calling them stupid
un-American cowards and then getting flattened by the bus. Oh, and
dragging 50 million people in front of the bus with you.

Something can ALWAYS go wrong with ANY foreign policy. There will
ALWAYS be Cassandras warning of doom and destruction.

There will
ALWAYS be somebody just waiting for the chance to say "TOLD you
so !".

If you wait until everything is 100% certain and everyone
is 100% with you then you'll NEVER get anything done.

Leaders are
supposed to LEAD - and not every place they lead us will be a
good place.
JFK led us to the teetering brink of thermonuclear
war. LBJ led us into Vietnam and a welfare state. Clinton led us
into Serbia (I *still* don't know why we did the euros dirty work
for them there) and Somalia. Reagan led us out of communism but
into a big debt to accomplish it. Bush-1 led us into Iraq ... but
didn't finish the job when it would have been EASY. Carter wanted
100% certainty, 100% approval and thus led us NOWHERE ... except
to a rad-Islamic Iran.

saying we gave 'em their
big chance, did all we could ...

We sure did...and it wasn't very much.

Um ... we're not gawds ... can't just ZAP 'em into peace
and prosperity.

We tried to tell you that three years ago.

We told you it couldn't be accomplished overnight, maybe not
at all - but we'd TRY rather than wimp out.

OK, we've tried - hard. Everything we fix, the insurgents
tear down and the locals see no evil, hear no evil, speak
no evil. If they let themselves be manipulated into a big
civil war - screw 'em.

We gave as much as we could and then some.
It was a BIG CHANCE - a golden opportunity to steer away
from the tyranny and petty infighting that have dominated
affairs there since they days of Babylon. They couldn't
make the adjustment. They've blown their chance.

Yeah yeah it's all their fault. Our meddling had nothing to do with
the fact that their country is in ruins and they have tens of thousands
dead. Have you ever said any of this ***** to an Iraqi face to
face? I'd love to see that!

Um ... the country was crap BEFORE we came. Saddam & pals sucked
up all the spare cash, let the infrastructure rot and used
jackboots to make sure nobody complained.

It's slightly more
crappy now, but only slightly. WE don't tear down the electric
lines, IRAQIS do. WE don't sabotage the water-works, IRAQIS do.
WE don't detonate cars at the mosques, IRAQIS do. WE don't
slaughter the politicians, judges, teachers, doctors, journalists
and technicians, IRAQIS do.

Wasn't their fault to begin with, but it is NOW.

--
"Oh, I know some fear the possibility that Iraq could break apart and
fall into a civil war. I don't believe these fears are justified.
They're not justified so long as we do not abandon the Iraqi people in
their hour of need."
-G.W.Bush

"W" was wrong.

"W" was wrong, everybody that voted for him was wrong, and everybody
that supported the unprovoked invasion and military occupation of the
sovereign nation of Iraq in the name of Bush's social experiment was
wrong.

In varying ways, to varying degrees. Many were also RIGHT about
why it was a good thing to depose Saddam, in varying ways, to
varying degrees.

This war, like Vietnam, will be another GREY
area with valid arguments, and BAD arguments from all sides.

There isn't a damned thing we can do about it.

Well *somebody* should be held accountable, don't you think?

The French. :-)

Actually, were exactly do you go looking for 'accountability'
is a huge bureaucracy like the US government ?

This war didn't
just pop out of "W"s head and appear like magic in Iraq ...
there were THOUSANDS of people involved at every level, in
every detail. Support ranged from absolute to zero, but most
of it fell in-between somewhere. If you're in a vindictive
mood we'd have to fire 95% of the government and most of
the military. Doesn't seem practical. So, you suggest roasting
a scapegoat or two - make us all FEEL better, right ?