House, 218 to 212, Votes to Set Date for Iraq Pullout

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

WOW! Got something to back that up? I haven't heard that one before. Enlighten me...

One cannot be enlightened when one already knows from a political agenda. Diane Sawyer's 60 Minute interview, Amb. Glaspie's statements, and statements made by a visiting American congressional delagation all told Saddam that he could invade Kuwait.

Glaspie's comments in your own post are correct. She told Saddam that Kuwait was not to be invaded. And as the tape even shows, that same comment from Saddam's perspective is permission to attack Kuwait.

But then this is common knowledge to those who learn from history rather than know how history should read. Others have accurately stated why Saddam invaded. He thought he had American permission. He was rather surprised and unprepared for what happened next.

What Happy Monkey posted has long been known fact. You own quotes are correct and agree with what Happy Monkey when we include all facts. Saddam repeatedly thought of himself as an ally of the US. A fact that gets lost when political agendas automatically paint Saddam as a vicious enemy just waiting to attack America. He never was. Saddam never had intent to attack America. Saddam’s objectives were limited to the Middle East.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by tw

What Happy Monkey posted has long been known fact.

In fact that is incorrect and if you would have read the link he posted as evidence to support his position you would have learned that the issue is controversial. In fact there is no agreement as to what Saddam thought or how he interpreted the comments by the Ambassador. In fact, as I clearly pointed out, his intentions were obvious when he massed troops on the border. Either way I find it a somewhat mute observation, I was not a mystery what he had intended to do. And in the end he got his eye blackend and his nose bloodied for it. Your myopic interpretations of my assessment are continually deluded by you own personal bias.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I would agree. But don't you think we need to cautious about the swing of the pendulum?

To what? What is the "Democrats are equally bad" thing that the Democrats will do?

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

In fact that is incorrect and if you would have read the link he posted as evidence to support his position you would have learned that the issue is controversial. In fact there is no agreement as to what Saddam thought or how he interpreted the comments by the Ambassador. In fact, as I clearly pointed out, his intentions were obvious when he massed troops on the border. Either way I find it a somewhat mute observation, I was not a mystery what he had intended to do.

Exactly. So the ambassador's protestations that she had no idea what he meant ring hollow.

[Happy Monkey]

Here.

[TheMercenary]

So you have taken one side of the controversial interpretation as fact? Clearly there is disagreement as to what was said and how it was interpreted. Given Saddams obvious intention to invade, he was going to see her comments in what ever light suited him. The guy was not an idiot, except for the fact that he continually underestimated what our response to his action would be.

"Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution, writing in the New York Times on September 21, 2003, disagrees with this analysis: "In fact, all the evidence indicates the opposite: Saddam Hussein believed it was highly likely that the United States would try to liberate Kuwait but convinced himself that we would send only lightly armed, rapidly deployable forces that would be quickly destroyed by his 120,000-man Republican Guard. After this, he assumed, Washington would acquiesce to his conquest." Tariq Aziz claimed in a 1996 PBS interview that Iraq "had no illusions" prior to the invasion of Kuwait about the likelihood of U.S. military intervention."

"In April 1991 Glaspie testified before the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate. She said that at the July 25 meeting she had "repeatedly warned Iraqi President Saddam Hussein against using force to settle his dispute with Kuwait." She also said that Saddam had lied to her by denying he would invade Kuwait. Asked to explain how Saddam could have interpreted her comments as implying U.S. approval for the invasion of Kuwait, she replied: "We foolishly did not realize he [Saddam] was stupid."

[Urbane Guerrilla]

The Neocon Reader

The Essential Neoconservative Reader

This one's probably worth a good look too.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Kitsune

You're doing nothing more than wrapping yourself in the banner of another organization that receives more support than the one with ideals you subscribe to.

Well, receives more support on this board, anyway. Last I checked the Libertarian party wasn't holding the Presidency.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and the defense -- against attack from abroad -- of the lives, liberty, and property of the American people on American soil. Provision of such defense must respect the individual rights of people everywhere.

Shouldn't a Libertarian Administration acknowledge and defend the property of Americans on foreign soil as well? They'd better if they want to stay an Administration, democracy being what it is -- fail in this and the statist parties will grab power right back from you. Attacks from abroad, whether across our nation's borders or in foreign areas, amount in the libertarian view to assaults upon property rights. Libertarianism is sworn to defend these.

The principle of non-intervention should guide relationships between governments.

But never does and never did. And what means have we to cause other governments to adopt the non-intervention/non-coercion principle?

Coercion. Nations are notably slow to respond to the simple presence of a good example.

The United States government should return to the historic libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, abstaining totally from foreign quarrels and imperialist adventures, and recognizing the right to unrestricted trade, travel, and immigration.

And should the LP ever find itself with the responsibility of leading and managing the country, it will be unable to do any of this with the world as it is currently constituted. The "imperialist adventures" idea, as far as the United States is concerned, is simply a straw man. Our political instinct is remarkably non-imperialist, and I do not see any likelihood it will change. Capitalism is of itself anti-imperialist, for imperialist thinking is supported not be determinedly freemarket capitalism, but by mercantilism, to which the United States has never subscribed. We shall always have to enforce -- by coercive means -- the libertarian principle of free trade so long as one nonlibertarian nation remains on Earth.

To become a truly viable political entity in the world, libertarianism and its practitioners must be prepared, baldly put, to make war. We've shrunk from considering what we should make war about. This won't help libertarianism come into being. It may well make it vanish.

Ask yourself this: does a libertarian republic prosper better, or worse, if it is the sole libertarian republic on Earth? Would it prosper better, or worse, in the company of other libertarian republics?

You know what answer to give.

Now how do unlibertarian nations become libertarian ones? What is the likelihood of some interest group opposing the libertarian liberation?

How libertarian do the nations have to become? Is there only one model of libertarianism or is it a varied continuum?

Can you realistically expect a withering away of the State?

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Shouldn't a Libertarian Administration acknowledge and defend the property of Americans on foreign soil as well?

Seriously, you are high right now, aren't you? The answer to your question is no. You would find common ground on this with certain millionaire Democrats with Balkan holdings though.

[cashc]

By the way I understand that much of what I feel about this is influenced by the fact that I live in an extremely conservative community.

I'd like to see some views from people outside "the bubble" as my home is sometimes called.

[cashc]

(Back to the topic for a second)

As far as a pullout in Iraq is concerned does anyone else feel that to do so too soon could potentially scar the region much longer than an extended occupation would?

I'm not arguing a point, merely asking a question.

Only a high school student so I would like to see what some of you believe on this subject who are potentially more informed than me on this matter.

[tw]

The defeat in Iraq was de facto last summer when George Jr did not give military commanders what they needed and what military doctrine requires for a victory - 500,000 troops. Details based even in Military Science 101 are posted repeatedly in The Cellar even many years ago. How many full days do you have this week to read reason after reason?

The Iraq Study Group provides the only alternative for minimizing that defeat. Of course, you read all 79 points? If not, why not?

Meanwhile, Afghanistan is also approaching defeat. Those who don’t learn from a military perspective will deny this second and approaching defeat. Afghanistan (a war justified by a smoking gun) is going just like Iraq because George Jr administration violated military doctrine repeatedly. Conservatives who did not see that have acted just as anti-American. Ignorance is not an excuse especially after the lesson called Vietnam.

George Jr has only done same things that were proven wrong Nam. Any patriotic American learned those lesson because a partiotic American has so much respect for the American soldier. George Jr even violated basic military doctrine defined in 500 BC. Conduct of “Mission Accomplished” was so bad that every general who served in Iraq and has since retired has bluntly criticized this anti-American administration. Even every living ex-president has spoken out against this war; Gerald Ford being the last because he asked his comments withheld until after he died. Of course you know this well published facts? If not, then why not.

Ask yourself whether a conservative neighborhood had respect for the American soldier as to list the many reasons why George Jr has created defeat and civil war. It's no accident that Brent Scowcroft – a George Sr closest friend – described the disaster we were creating years ago. Again, search the Cellar to read Scowcroft's comments supported by reasons and facts. This “Mission Accomplished” defeat was obvious years ago – complete with reasons that have only proven in time to be accurate. Any decent conservative without contempt for American soldiers would have known these facts. Too many call themselves conservative but so hate the country as to not learn underlying facts and principles.

Use a full week to read the reams of reasons why “Mission Accomplished” was obviously a defeat long ago. In Vietnam, we had to massacre 30,000 more American soldiers for 5 more years before the public finally saw what was obvious to military strategists even in 1968 – even see references to the Wise Men. Today some without grasp still deny what the informed knew about Nam before Nixon was even elected president. So how many more Americans did we massacre?

ISG is the only hope we have to minimize the defeat. Every month we ignore ISG is every month we only make the defeat worse. We have lost this war because of George Jr, Cheney and other who used a political agenda rather than reality. Iraqis will therefore suffer the consequences. Worse: due to ‘mental midget” intransigence, Afghanistan is on the verge of also being lost.

You knew that well over 50% of Afghanistan had fallen back into Taliban hands years ago? If not, search posts in the Cellar back then to see how long ago the Afghan war was being lost. The Cellar is a perfect archive for learning how long ago we knew things were bad.

There are extremist liberals and conservative – both dumb. On the other end of that rope are those who instead use facts, logic, and lessons from history. The latter saw a “Mission Accomplished” defeat last summer by using facts rather than a political agenda. See comments from Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft posted in The Cellar back in Jan 2005 to appreciate what people who use intelligence (rather than a political agenda) were accurately predicting.

Those who used political agendas to think - by definition - have contempt for the American soldier. To remain ignorant is another lession from Nam; why we wasted 30,000 Americans to protect the legacy of Nixon.

[DanaC]

As far as a pullout in Iraq is concerned does anyone else feel that to do so too soon could potentially scar the region much longer than an extended occupation would?

I think the violence level in Iraq is going to continue getting higher as long as the country is occupied. We haven't manged to prevent the civil war we fear would occur should we leave. They are currently in a state of civl war, with one side having some little access to state resources, such as the police. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that the Iraqi police force (which is predominantly of one sect) is carrying out a policy of sectional terror against civilians who belong to the other main sect. The presence of coalition troops does not seem to mitigate this behaviour at all.

Meanwhile, the groups who are conducting a guerrilla war against coalition troops are almost impossible to root out and will continue to fight ferociously against them for as long as they are present. Remove the troops and their ability to recruit will be severely diminished.

It's almost impossible for anybody to say exactly what will happen when the troops pull out, but what can clearly be seen is the fact that their presence is not promoting peace within Iraq, it is having the opposite effect.

[tw]

Originally Posted by DanaC

I think the violence level in Iraq is going to continue getting higher as long as the country is occupied. We haven't manged to prevent the civil war we fear would occur should we leave. They are currently in a state of civl war, with one side having some little access to state resources, such as the police.

And just like in Vietnam - another civil war - the violence increased. And the enemy kept getting smarter. See quotes from the 16 Apr 2007 NY Times article in Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone.
Exact same events happened in Vietnam. Just as a mental midget and anti-American president denies it is a civil war and ignores the Iraq Study Group; in Nam, the president denied it was a civil war and ignored the Wise Men. Deja vue just too many times - or why those with only "political agendas" never learn how to be patriotic American.

One who refuses to learn from history and 'supports the troops' in a lost cause has only contempt for those troops.

In some ways, it reminds me of the battle of Syracuse - and what happened to Athens as a result of their 'big dic' stupidity.

[cashc]

Of course, you read all 79 points? If not, why not?

Of course you know this well published facts? If not, then why not.

I'd say it's probably due to the fact that I've lived in life that so far has been cultivated to respect and maintain the ideals my parents hold.

I'll look into some of the information that you've listed here, thanks for the information.

whether a conservative neighborhood had respect for the American soldier

This sort of got me fired up because a generalization of any kind is almost always wrong. In this case, my community has a tremendous amount of respect and love for the troops in Iraq right now, many of whom has sons and daughters serving in the military now.

George Jr has created defeat and civil war.

I'd agree with the fact that our president has failed in many respects regarding the war in Iraq and foreign policy.

But I wonder, will the pullout of troops in Iraq really accomplish anything other than to quiet the anti-war, anti-bush group? I mean what kind of effect will that have on the fledgeling government in Iraq and potentially the entire middle east especially since Iran recently announced its achievement of nuclear proliferation. How will Israel respond to these events? Seems to me like they are more than willing to use the weapons they possess to insure their security as a nation is not threatened.

I went way off topic

Anyways thanks for your time and opinions so far.

The Cellar has been a great way for me to see the world outside my community since I found it a few months ago. You guys are awesome