Cheney is Absolutely Correct

[MSgt]

But then you say:

After just saying "war is not an experiment waged to prove academic or commercial theory" you are promoting the attack on Iraq as the "ultimate laboratory" of change in the Middle East. You seem to be arguing in favor of the attack upon Iraq because it is a good place to experiment with "academic or commercial theory," right after asserting war is not an experiment.

War is not an experiment. You missed the point completely and confused what I stated. The effort to realize a Muslim government that enforces the rule of law and gives every Muslim, no matter the sect, an equal voice is the experiment. It's up to Muslims to prove to the world whether they can or cannot do it. But warfare itself should not be the experiment.

The "academic or commercial theory" of the Rumsfeld coven was to prove that "sterile" warfare was the future. With the embracement of technology and fantastical ideologies, Operation: Iraqi Freedom was to prove that ground forces were obsolete-this, of course, all goes back to the Gulf War success where our enemy was out in the open and away from civilian communities.

As Rumsfeld began his tenure as secretary of defense, he declared that he was going to transform our military. This was needed and the letters and policy changes were distributed throughout the commands. However, he lied or he simply made the ignorant mistake of professing to be able to prescribe innovative solutions to something he had no experience with. Had he meant it, transformation would have started with the cancellation of platinum plated Cold War-era systems designed to fight a nonexistent Soviet Navy and Air Force. Instead the Defense Industry got a front row seat with Congress. Rumsfeld declined to cancel a single big-ticket weapons system. Systems were given an extra letter (F-22 changed to FA-22) in their nomenclatures to justify a future existence in our arsenol. And those insignificant letters are costing us trillions.

The mantra of privatization-an excuse for tossing still more money into the laps of contractors-meant that our battlefield supply system no longer had the robust qualities that helped us win previous wars. Units in battle were running out of bullets, feul, food, and water (I had my Marines empty half their mags just to supply the unit 200 yards in front of us). The contractors who were supposed to pick up the slack in the rear were nowhere to be seen.

The failures of Rumsfeld's phony defense reforms have been hidden behind assertions of greater efficiency. But war isn't about efficiency. It's about effectiveness. The concept of just-in-time spare parts may work down at a local auto dealership, but the approach doesn't work on the battlefield. An Infantry Battalion can't wait for FedEx to deliver its machinegun ammunition-quite literally when it comes to parts in Iraq today.

Consider the events....

Operation Iraqi Freedom began with a hi-tech sound-and-light show that achieved nothing. Unable to locate the Iraqi leadership, despite the billions spent on target acquisition technology (Cold War systems), the Air Force bombed empty buildings - and not many of them, at that. We wanted to win without breaking windows. The over hyped "shock-and-awe" campaign fizzled overnight. Among other things, it had failed to take into the psycology of the enemy. A mere display of our technological prowess was supposed to persuade Saddam Hussein and his regime to surrender. But the Iraqi leadership had no incentive to sue for peace. They knew it would mean the loss of their prestige, power, and personal freedom-if not their lives.

The war had to be fought and won the old way, with ground troops engaging in close-range combat in sandstorms - and in some places like Al-Basra and An-Dhanariya, Marines were hand-to-hand. The plan of a minimum ground force to mop up the surrendering masses was all we had. Faced with failure of its initial gambit, the Air Force's emphasis shifted toward providing more battlefield support to the Army and Marines. As our services started working together instead of the on seperate agendas, the effectiveness of each of the parts increased and our old way of inter-branch Combined Arms emerged. The result was to win one of the most lopsided vistories in history. Had we faced a more determined, more capable enemy (not trained to 20th century Soviet tactics), a significant portion of our airpower would have been grounded for lack of armaments. Whole units could have easily been surrounded forcing us to fight in all directions. Even our hi-tech intelligence network (Ironically, funding for was cut by Rumsfeld's vision of future warfare and sent to the failed RMA) couldn't locate the enemy leadership, it missed the mass shift of Saddam's fidayeen, his private thugs, to the cities and towns along our lines of advance.

We won because our troops and our combat leadership made up for the deficiencies in the Rumsfeld theories. But the effort was far riskier than it had to be. Because the intent was to prove that ground forces were obsolete, Rumsfeld refused to send more troops. We lacked cavalry regiments and extra Marine Battalions to guard our lengthening supply lines, which led to resupply disruptions and deadly ambushes. Fatefully, we got to Baghdad with insufficient numbers of troops to inundate the Sunni Triangle, the regime's bastion of support. In the cities that later became hotbeds of the insurgency-Fallujah, Ramadi, Samarra, Baquba, and others-we could not establish a robust, convincing presence. Towns and villages in the Sunni heartland did not see an American "soldier" for month. A hostile population was never forced to comprehend its defeat. Warfare still requires adequite numbers of ground troops. As we have learned yet again, occupations cannot be staged on the cheap. Especially in conflicts waged between asymmetrical cultures, sheer human presence-in uniform-is essential if we want to extract long-term benefits from our battlefield victories.

And, of course, during all of this, our civilian leadership in Washington continued to refuse a hearing to military leaders like General Shinseki, or to the many other military officers, diplomats, and intelligence hands who sought to talk sense to them. Our occupation of Iraq would have gone far more smoothly, far fewer of our troops would have died or sufferred wounds in the war's aftermath, and the people of Iraq would have had to endure far less chaos, confusion, and bloodshed on the road to their futures. And while they denied the wisdom of military affairs and fist hand cultural knowledge, they were grandstanding behind microphones and insisting that Saddam has large amounts of WMD just around the corner and that proof of a Osama/Saddam collaberation was just a file cabinet away. Reasons of nobility and great strategic regional change was just a subtle hint overshadowed by empty promises they thought they needed.

Rumsfeld and his bench of incompetence set out to do the right thing by deposing Saddam Hussein for a number of reasons. But they did it very, very badly. Not only did they purposefully choose to cover it from the wrong aspect, they denied us of opportunities we can't get back.

This botching of military affairs and conduct was a result of academic and commercial theory.

 

[Iriemon]

War is not an experiment. You missed the point completely and confused what I stated. The effort to realize a Muslim government that enforces the rule of law and gives every Muslim, no matter the sect, an equal voice is the experiment. It's up to Muslims to prove to the world whether they can or cannot do it. But warfare itself should not be the experiment.

That is exactly what Iraq was -- use of military in an experiment to attempt to install a democracy by force -- a great laboratory as you put it.

It is not up to the Muslems to prove anything to the world. The United States was the aggressor nation against Iraq. It was up to the US to justify to the world that its use of military power was and is legitimate and justified. If it was not the Muslems have every right to resist it.

The effort to realize a Muslem government that enforces the rule of law and gives every Muslim, no matter the sect, an equal voice is the experiment (which has existed in Turkey for decades) is for Muslims to realize themselves. Because you and I think our government is better is no justification for the US to attack their country.

The "academic or commercial theory" of the Rumsfeld coven was to prove that "sterile" warfare was the future.

It equally describes the neocon concept of using force to install more favorable governments in the ME, particularly Iraq.

With the embracement of technology and fantastical ideologies, Operation: Iraqi Freedom was to prove that ground forces were obsolete-this, of course, all goes back to the Gulf War success where our enemy was out in the open and away from civilian communities.

No, that is not why Rumsfeld didn't think we needed 500,000 troops. It was a result of the neocon fanatasy that we would waltz into Iraq, and after a brief conflict of putting down Hussein's forces, the Iraqi populace would welcome us as liberators, and eagerly embrace our concept of government. That was why we didn't need 500,000 troops.

Runsfeld was right. We didn't need 500,000 troops to defeat the Iraqi army. We probably could have done it with 50,000 like he said. Where he and the rest of the neocon crowd were wrong was the supposition that Iraqis would welcome us as liberators with little or no resistance.

And the chance of that happening, especially when it became clear our reason for attacking was false, was small, and made nil by the way we have conducted our effort.

As Rumsfeld began his tenure as secretary of defense, he declared that he was going to transform our military. This was needed and the letters and policy changes were distributed throughout the commands. However, he lied or he simply made the ignorant mistake of professing to be able to prescribe innovative solutions to something he had no experience with. Had he meant it, transformation would have started with the cancellation of platinum plated Cold War-era systems designed to fight a nonexistent Soviet Navy and Air Force. Instead the Defense Industry got a front row seat with Congress. Rumsfeld declined to cancel a single big-ticket weapons system. Systems were given an extra letter (F-22 changed to FA-22) in their nomenclatures to justify a future existence in our arsenol. And those insignificant letters are costing us trillions.

Business as normal. That's what happens when you increase the DOD budget 66% or $200 billion more a year.

The mantra of privatization-an excuse for tossing still more money into the laps of contractors-meant that our battlefield supply system no longer had the robust qualities that helped us win previous wars. Units in battle were running out of bullets, feul, food, and water (I had my Marines empty half their mags just to supply the unit 200 yards in front of us). The contractors who were supposed to pick up the slack in the rear were nowhere to be seen.

None of which was a major problem in defeating the Iraqi army, was it?

The failures of Rumsfeld's phony defense reforms have been hidden behind assertions of greater efficiency. But war isn't about efficiency. It's about effectiveness. The concept of just-in-time spare parts may work down at a local auto dealership, but the approach doesn't work on the battlefield. An Infantry Battalion can't wait for FedEx to deliver its machinegun ammunition-quite literally when it comes to parts in Iraq today.

The war against the Iraqi army was extremely effective. We routed their units and captured the capital within a couple weeks, with minimal losses.

That was not the problem.

Consider the events....

Operation Iraqi Freedom began with a hi-tech sound-and-light show that achieved nothing. Unable to locate the Iraqi leadership, despite the billions spent on target acquisition technology (Cold War systems), the Air Force bombed empty buildings - and not many of them, at that. We wanted to win without breaking windows. The over hyped "shock-and-awe" campaign fizzled overnight. Among other things, it had failed to take into the psycology of the enemy. A mere display of our technological prowess was supposed to persuade Saddam Hussein and his regime to surrender. But the Iraqi leadership had no incentive to sue for peace. They knew it would mean the loss of their prestige, power, and personal freedom-if not their lives.

No, it was extremely effective in accomplishing its goal of destroying the Iraqi army.

Not the problem.

The war had to be fought and won the old way, with ground troops engaging in close-range combat in sandstorms - and in some places like Al-Basra and An-Dhanariya, Marines were hand-to-hand. The plan of a minimum ground force to mop up the surrendering masses was all we had. Faced with failure of its initial gambit, the Air Force's emphasis shifted toward providing more battlefield support to the Army and Marines. As our services started working together instead of the on seperate agendas, the effectiveness of each of the parts increased and our old way of inter-branch Combined Arms emerged. The result was to win one of the most lopsided vistories in history.

Right. So what are you bitching about Rummy's strategy for defeating the Iraqi army?

Had we faced a more determined, more capable enemy (not trained to 20th century Soviet tactics), a significant portion of our airpower would have been grounded for lack of armaments. Whole units could have easily been surrounded forcing us to fight in all directions. Even our hi-tech intelligence network (Ironically, funding for was cut by Rumsfeld's vision of future warfare and sent to the failed RMA) couldn't locate the enemy leadership, it missed the mass shift of Saddam's fidayeen, his private thugs, to the cities and towns along our lines of advance.

**** happens when you start a war.

We won because our troops and our combat leadership made up for the deficiencies in the Rumsfeld theories. But the effort was far riskier than it had to be. Because the intent was to prove that ground forces were obsolete, Rumsfeld refused to send more troops. We lacked cavalry regiments and extra Marine Battalions to guard our lengthening supply lines, which led to resupply disruptions and deadly ambushes. Fatefully, we got to Baghdad with insufficient numbers of troops to inundate the Sunni Triangle, the regime's bastion of support. In the cities that later became hotbeds of the insurgency-Fallujah, Ramadi, Samarra, Baquba, and others-we could not establish a robust, convincing presence. Towns and villages in the Sunni heartland did not see an American "soldier" for month. A hostile population was never forced to comprehend its defeat.

It comprehended it just fine. The problem was and is: "A hostile population."

Warfare still requires adequite numbers of ground troops. As we have learned yet again, occupations cannot be staged on the cheap. Especially in conflicts waged between asymmetrical cultures, sheer human presence-in uniform-is essential if we want to extract long-term benefits from our battlefield victories.

Yes, if you intend to subdue a hostile population, you need a huge number of troops willing to undertake very brutal tactics. And even that is no guarantee, ask the Soviets about how things went in Afganistan.

That policy may have been fine for the Soviets or the Romans. But not Americans. Most Americans don't want anything to do with that. If that was needed to make the plan work, as you say, it should never have been attempted because many Americans will not support it.

That should have been a lesson from Vietnam as well.

And, of course, during all of this, our civilian leadership in Washington continued to refuse a hearing to military leaders like General Shinseki, or to the many other military officers, diplomats, and intelligence hands who sought to talk sense to them. Our occupation of Iraq would have gone far more smoothly, far fewer of our troops would have died or sufferred wounds in the war's aftermath, and the people of Iraq would have had to endure far less chaos, confusion, and bloodshed on the road to their futures. And while they denied the wisdom of military affairs and fist hand cultural knowledge, they were grandstanding behind microphones and insisting that Saddam has large amounts of WMD just around the corner and that proof of a Osama/Saddam collaberation was just a file cabinet away. Reasons of nobility and great strategic regional change was just a subtle hint overshadowed by empty promises they thought they needed.

Very good reasons not to do this kind of experiment.

Rumsfeld and his bench of incompetence set out to do the right thing by deposing Saddam Hussein for a number of reasons. But they did it very, very badly. Not only did they purposefully choose to cover it from the wrong aspect, they denied us of opportunities we can't get back.

This botching of military affairs and conduct was a result of academic and commercial theory.

Bush and his bench of incompetence set out and did the wrong thing by attacking a nation based on false pretenses and without legitimate justification.

The US military conducted the Iraqi campaign brilliantly, and completely defeated one of the world's larger armies in a matter of weaks.

However, the illegitimate basis for the US attack, and the fact that the substantial minority that had ruled Iraq for decades was forceably deposed from power, combined with the colonistic history of the region as well as the regious aspects of the region that made the invaders infidels or crusaders, virtually guaranteed that there would be a large group that would not accept the US action and that there would be a strong resistance to it. This resistance had everything to do with who attacked Iraq and why Iraq was attacked, and little to do with the successful military campaign which quickly defeated Iraq's armed forces.

You stated: "War is a terrible endeavor for a great purpose-and if the purpose is not great, we should not go to war."

That is exactly correct. Democracy is a noble thing. But starting a war for the purpose of forcing a nation to have a democratic government is not a great purpose for starting a war.

 

[Iriemon]

Best I can do considering I don't know the name of the report or if it has been released for public consumption:

A U.S. intelligence official who spoke on condition of anonymity said translators and analysts are busy "separating the gems from the junk." The official said some of the analysts have concluded that the documents show that Saddam's government provided monthly payments and a home for Yasin.

Even if the new information holds up — and intelligence and law enforcement officials disagree on its conclusiveness — the links tying Yasin, Saddam and al-Qaeda are tentative.

USATODAY.com - U.S.: Iraq sheltered suspect in '93 WTC attack

The best you can offer to support your assertion that "the undisputed fact that Saddam was harboring a member of AQ" is a four year old article reporting, at a time when the Administration was trying to justify its attack on Iraq on other grounds because no WMDs were found, on statements by unamed US officials describing an undisclosed and unidentified documents that "some" undisclosed analysts concluded that Yasin was receiving some unidentified payments at some unidentified time, which article also reports that officials disagree on it conslcusiveness.

Four years later you can point to no other reports of these documents, what they are, what they say, or anything else that would bolster the contention that Yasin was being "harbored" by Hussein or the Administration's claim that Iraq was corraborating with Al-Queda.

In TOT world that may equate to an "undisputed" fact.

 

[Stinger]

Having contact, and cooperating are very differnt concepts.

Yes and those distinctions were made. But recall it was Clinton who claimed they were cooperating.

The United States has contacts with virtually every terrorist organization on Earth,

Not for the purpose of furthering their causes or aiding and abetting them. But tell me what kind of contact do we have with Al qaeda?

Attempting to justify an invasion based on such extremely loose ties seems a rather feeble gesture from someone who has little left to work with.

They weren't lose ties, but so what if they were. Saddam was under very specific conditions to remain in power and one was that he would have NO contact with Al qaeda or other terrorist groups. And every commission and investigation has demonstrated that Saddam and in particular Al qaeda had developed ties and wanted to further those ties.

We have watched carefully as each attempted explanation for this war has been discounted and proven to be invalid,

The only premise for the war that has not been proven are the stockpiles of WMD which we will never know exactly what he did or didn't have in ready to go condition. Minor point.

only to be replaced with a new reasoning

That's an outright lie, they were all put forth together not one at a time, not replacing one with another.

 

[Iriemon]

They weren't lose ties, but so what if they were. Saddam was under very specific conditions to remain in power and one was that he would have NO contact with Al qaeda or other terrorist groups. And every commission and investigation has demonstrated that Saddam and in particular Al qaeda had developed ties and wanted to further those ties.

If there is credible evidence that Hussein war trying to further ties and cooperation with Al-Queda, it is news to me.

Hussein had no natural reason to want ties with Al Queda, and if anything they would be antagonistic. Hussein was not a radical Islamist like them; he was an obstacle to them and their goal would be to remove relative secularists like Hussein (with his Christian top minister) and replace his rule with clerical Islamics who would institute Islamic law. Hussein helping Al Queda would mean he was helping an enemy. Furthermore, helping terrorists like Al-Queda would be putting his rule unnecessarily at risk, which would be contrary to Hussein's goal of maintaining power.

Al-Queda in Iraq to the extent it existed prior to Mar 03 was located in the Kurdish region and was assisting those guys against Hussein.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

A U.S. intelligence official who spoke on condition of anonymity said translators and analysts are busy "separating the gems from the junk." The official said some of the analysts have concluded that the documents show that Saddam's government provided monthly payments and a home for Yasin.

Even if the new information holds up — and intelligence and law enforcement officials disagree on its conclusiveness — the links tying Yasin, Saddam and al-Qaeda are tentative.

USATODAY.com - U.S.: Iraq sheltered suspect in '93 WTC attack

The best you can offer to support your assertion that "the undisputed fact that Saddam was harboring a member of AQ" is a four year old article reporting, at a time when the Administration was trying to justify its attack on Iraq on other grounds because no WMDs were found, on statements by unamed US officials describing an undisclosed and unidentified documents that "some" undisclosed analysts concluded that Yasin was receiving some unidentified payments at some unidentified time, which article also reports that officials disagree on it conslcusiveness.

Four years later you can point to no other reports of these documents, what they are, what they say, or anything else that would bolster the contention that Yasin was being "harbored" by Hussein or the Administration's claim that Iraq was corraborating with Al-Queda.

In TOT world that may equate to an "undisputed" fact.

No actually the best I can do is show that Yasin a member of AQ was in Iraq with the knowledge and approval of Saddam Hussein IE he was harboring a known terrorist who had attacked the U.S. on our soil.

 

[Iriemon]

No actually the best I can do is show that Yasin a member of AQ was in Iraq with the knowledge and approval of Saddam Hussein IE he was harboring a known terrorist who had attacked the U.S. on our soil.

I see your point.

Using your logic, you could say the US is harboring a known terrorist, as
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who had attacked the US is a known member of AQ who is in US possession with the knowledge and approval of the Bush administration.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I see your point.

Using your logic, you could say the US is harboring a known terrorist, as
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who had attacked the US is a known member of AQ who is in US possession with the knowledge and approval of the Bush administration.

Save for one thing, Yasin was not a prisoner in Iraq we A) have those documents I was referring to, and B) we have his neighbor who comfirmed he was able to move freely and worked for the government, so we have an eyewitness and documentation to corraborate it, I'm really not sure what else you want save for maybe Saddam and Yasin going out together hitting the Iraqi nightlife.

 

[Iriemon]

Save for one thing, Yasin was not a prisoner in Iraq we A) have those documents I was referring to, and B) we have his neighbor who comfirmed he was able to move freely and worked for the government, so we have an eyewitness and documentation to corraborate it, I'm really not sure what else you want save for maybe Saddam and Yasin going out together hitting the Iraqi nightlife.

A) What documents do we have, you haven't shown us any documents; B) what neighbor confirmed that?

The fact that Iraq offered to extradite Yasin to the US, even if under conditions (which are a matter of dispute) indicates he was not a free man. If he were a free man "hitting the nightlife" and knew that Hussein had offered to extradite him, he would have fled or gone into hiding. He didn't have the liberty to do that.

 

[niftydrifty]

gentlemen, please. so Saddam maybe sorta coulda had a teensy weensy contact, but we're not sure, because the "evidence" is totally sketchy. so essentially, there was none.

ok, so if we want to talk about a real connection for which there can be no doubt, why aren't we discussing the CIA's connection with al Qaeda and the mujahedeen?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

A) What documents do we have, you haven't shown us any documents;

Like I said I'm going on the word of the analyst who has viewed said documents.

B) what neighbor confirmed that?

Yasin's neighbors. It was comfirmed by a reporter on assignment for ABC and Newsweek. Do you need to know the neighbors names? I'm sure I can find the original author who reported the story. I doubt he gave names though probably due to the fact that these people would have been most assuredly killed by Saddam. O.K. here:

SHEILA MacVICAR: [voice-over] From New York, fugitive number 2, Abdul Rahman Yasin, flew to Amman, Jordan. By late spring, 1993, he had disappeared down the highway into neighboring Iraq. Last week, Day One confirmed he is in Baghdad. This is his father's house, where Abdul Rahman Yasin visits almost daily. Just a few days ago, he was seen at the house by ABC News. Neighbors told us Yasin comes and goes freely. In Washington, where the State Department has put a $2 million price tag on Yasin's head, a spokesman declined to comment on what, if any, steps are being taken to bring him to justice. He said they were previously aware of reports that Yasin was in Baghdad. As for Ramzi Yousef, the bomb-maker, the other $2-million fugitive, from New York he flew to Quetta in Pakistan. Unconfirmed reports say he may have crossed into Afghanistan. There the trail runs cold.

Iraq provided safe haven for terrorist involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing

The fact that Iraq offered to extradite Yasin to the US, even if under conditions (which are a matter of dispute) indicates he was not a free man. If he were a free man "hitting the nightlife" and knew that Hussein had offered to extradite him, he would have fled or gone into hiding. He didn't have the liberty to do that.

A) How was Yasin living in a house and working for the Iraqi government if he was in prison?

B) Who said Yasin knew that Saddam offered to extradite him?

C) Was OBL in prison when the Sudanese government offered to extradite him?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

gentlemen, please. so Saddam maybe sorta coulda had a teensy weensy contact, but we're not sure, because the "evidence" is totally sketchy. so essentially, there was none.

ok, so if we want to talk about a real connection for which there can be no doubt, why aren't we discussing the CIA's connection with al Qaeda and the mujahedeen?

Connection to the Mujahadeen yes, connection to AQ no, they are not one in the same.

 

[Iriemon]

Like I said I'm going on the word of the analyst who has viewed said documents.

You can go on anything you want.

We do not have the word of the analyst, all we have is a news article reporting what an unamed source said about what some unamend analysts concluded.

Yasin's neighbors. It was comfirmed by a reporter on assignment for ABC and Newsweek. Do you need to know the neighbors names? I'm sure I can find the original author who reported the story. I doubt he gave names though probably due to the fact that these people would have been most assuredly killed by Saddam. O.K. here it is the reporters name is SHEILA MacVICAR:

A) How was Yasin living in a house and working for the Iraqi government if he was in prison?

He was imprisoned after '94, according to reports.

Abdul Rahman Yasin fled to Iraq after the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. He lived as a free man for a year, but the authorities in Iraq tell CBS News they put him in prison in 1994.
60 Minutes: The Man Who Got Away - CBS News

B) Who said Yasin knew that Saddam offered to extradite him?

I don't know that. He must have known that he was wanted by the US. He was offered by Iraq for extradition with conditions on numerous occasions in 98, 02, and 03. Word gets around.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

You can go on anything you want.

We do not have the word of the analyst, all we have is a news article reporting what an unamed source said about what some unamend analysts concluded.

CBS, Newsweek, and USA Today all reported the same story, did they all make up this anonomous source?

He was imprisoned after '94, according to reports.

Abdul Rahman Yasin fled to Iraq after the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. He lived as a free man for a year, but the authorities in Iraq tell CBS News they put him in prison in 1994.
60 Minutes: The Man Who Got Away - CBS News

Again according to the Iraqi's but that bullshit has been shattered through the eye witness's and the documentation.

I don't know that. He must have known that he was wanted by the US. He was offered by Iraq for extradition with conditions on numerous occasions in 98, 02, and 03. Word gets around.

Word gets around? Umm no one knew outside of the diplomats until after the war started.

 

[Australianlibertarian]

The question is whether or not this AQ in Iraq was actually trying to get the Baathis regime to support AQ terrorism in the U.S or around the world. That is the sticky point. Sure Saddam may have employed the guy, given him a house, as I recall a few Palestinian terrorists were given refuge in Iraq over the years...

Did that mean; that Iraq was actively working with these terrorists to attack the U.S?

This point is important, because I believe that this was what the U.S administration was trying to infer to the U.S general public. The evidence points to AQ guys being in Iraq, but the evidence does not clearly demonstrate that the former Iraqi regime and these known suspects were actively working together and planing attacks on the U.S. That is the critical difference.

Unfortunatley if we take the logic of TOT to the enth degree, just about any country in the world could be seen as associating with terrorists. Due to the fact that they have allowed Islamic terrorists or financiers in via asylum laws. That could even include Australia.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

The question is whether or not this AQ in Iraq was actually trying to get the Baathis regime to support AQ terrorism in the U.S or around the world. That is the sticky point. Sure Saddam may have employed the guy, given him a house, as I recall a few Palestinian terrorists were given refuge in Iraq over the years...

Did that mean; that Iraq was actively working with these terrorists to attack the U.S?

This point is important, because I believe that this was what the U.S administration was trying to infer to the U.S general public. The evidence points to AQ guys being in Iraq, but the evidence does not clearly demonstrate that the former Iraqi regime and these known suspects were actively working together and planing attacks on the U.S. That is the critical difference.

Unfortunatley if we take the logic of TOT to the enth degree, just about any country in the world could be seen as associating with terrorists. Due to the fact that they have allowed Islamic terrorists or financiers in via asylum laws. That could even include Australia.

A) This wasn't just an ordinary terrorist, he was one of the terrorists responsible for the 1993 WTC bombing, he committed that crime with Ramzi Yousef and Yousef is K.S.M.'s nephew (the same KSM that orchestrated 9-11.

B) It doesn't matter if they were collaborating or not, the fact that Saddam Hussein was harboring a known terrorist who attacked the U.S. is grounds for war, we will make no distinction between terrorists and those nations that harbor terrorists.

 

[MSgt]

It equally describes the neocon concept of using force to install more favorable governments in the ME, particularly Iraq.

Good god. Can't you criticize with honesty?

The military used force to remove the Saddam regime. Iraqi Democracy came from Iraqis freely willing to brave bombs and threats to cast votes. There is nothing about their new government that military force created.

Business as normal. That's what happens when you increase the DOD budget 66% or $200 billion more a year.

The budget is not the problem. The problem is where the money is spent.

No, that is not why Rumsfeld didn't think we needed 500,000 troops. It was a result of the neocon fanatasy that we would waltz into Iraq, and after a brief conflict of putting down Hussein's forces, the Iraqi populace would welcome us as liberators, and eagerly embrace our concept of government. That was why we didn't need 500,000 troops.

Very simplistic. I have already remarked on the idiocy of the NeoCon plan. You actually believe that this effort stopped with this? That the magic wand of democracy was going to sooth centuries of hatred and freedom would prevail with little more than a yawn? There was more to this than a simple idea of NeoCon fantasy that neglected any study into this culture. I have explained to you before about the RMA and there long time collaberation with Clintonian ethics in war and Rumsfeld's quest to prove his theories of warfare correct in collaberation with the Defense Industry. The war and the occupation would have been far more easier and more successful had the military been allowed to do what they know how to do. Instread, we were forced to try to validate the ideas of the worst Secretary of Defense in American history that was clinging to big budget military toys and other politicians ideas of changing the nature of warfare.

What you stated above, was just surface blaming. This is like staring at a compound fracture and deliberately stating that the open wound is the problem.

Runsfeld was right. We didn't need 500,000 troops to defeat the Iraqi army. We probably could have done it with 50,000 like he said. Where he and the rest of the neocon crowd were wrong was the supposition that Iraqis would welcome us as liberators with little or no resistance.

Also simplistic. You may as well have been his right hand man. Rumsfeld was wrong. Forgive me for countering your claims, but I happened to have been there and seen it first hand. I also may have just a tiny bit more experience with military affairs and tactics than you. Rumsfeld's plan of a minimum troop force worked because of the troop on the ground who is trained to be reactive and creative in his tactics. The ground plan to Baghdad was completely rewritten as our flanks became more exposed. And I'm nbot talking about the normal fog of war and the ever changing battlefield tempo. I am talking about entire plans of marches and priorities. We were continually having to sweep to our flanks, because we hadn't the forces to protect us. We were continually sending troops backwards, because we hadn't the forces to protect supply lines. And the reason Iraq fell into chaos shortly after we hit Baghdad, was because we purposefully stayed away from the bigger cities (where the majority of the faithful fled). This was because we didn't have the troop strength to commence urban operations on such a grand scale.

And during all of this, there was absolutely zero backup. The assaulting forces was it. You are assuming that Rumsfeld was right because the military forces were able to reach Baghdad without it turning into a disaster.

However, with the correct troop force, most of the fighting would not have even happened and we would have had a "beat cop" on every corner throughout the Sunni Triangle. Most immediate rebellious behavior in the Triangle would have simplkky been discouraged. They would have had no doubt that they were defeated. Instead we were facing off with Sunni insurgence months later who never saw an American troop after Baghdad fell and "Mission Accomplished" was spewed out on television sets. The snow ball we incapable of dealing with turned into an avalanche.

And the chance of that happening, especially when it became clear our reason for attacking was false, was small, and made nil by the way we have conducted our effort.

Remember what I said about the White House's focus on empty promises of WMD and links to Al-Queda instead of focusing on what they should have? I said it allowed our European "allies" and anti-Americans everywhere to focus on simplistic things that merely cheapen the greater objective.

This is what you do.

None of which was a major problem in defeating the Iraqi army, was it?

We managed. We should not have had to manage. We are the strongest military in history. And we had to scrounge for bullets and food. This war wasn't as comfortable for those that had to fight it. Our supply support and lack of troop support was a major problem. There were times that we slowed the advance because we were out of feul. This is what happens when the assaulting force remains the assaulting force throughout the campaign with absolutely no relief.

You are still missing the point.

The war against the Iraqi army was extremely effective. We routed their units and captured the capital within a couple weeks, with minimal losses.

That was not the problem.

Missing the point. We should have showed up to Baghdad with the troop force needed to occupy. Not compensate for its absence from the Kuwaiti border.

I am actually trying to hammer this into your head of what occurred behind the television screen. What you saw as "effective" could have easily been noneffective.

No, it was extremely effective in accomplishing its goal of destroying the Iraqi army.

Not the problem.

Completely missing the point. We were effective. Rumsfeld's plan was not.

Right. So what are you bitching about Rummy's strategy for defeating the Iraqi army?

You are so infuriating. This is like a professor discussing nuclear weaponry with a teenager who professes to know more about it by claiming that the whole problem is that we should not have developed it in the first place.

What you saw from your little television set had nothing to do with Rumsfeld's fantasies of what was to happen. That was all military creativity countering his failed plan and compensating for its lack of wisdom. The way we wound up fighting was exactly how we should have started. Not with a fantasy that technology over Baghdad would scare them into surrendering to the squad of 13 waltzing into a town. ONE of the things that sets our military apart from the world's militaries is our ability to perform at a high level with inter-branch Combined Arms. The Marines pioneered it long ago. This doctrine has been developed in other forms by the Army for their use and it is all applied between the branches. It took a few days for the OSD to recognize that the Air Force bombers over Baghdad were ineffective and they needed to be supporting the assaulting force. Because our numbers were so low on the ground, our individual branch air support could do little to support adjacent units, because it had to focus on what was directly below them. In the mean time, the Air Force FA-22 (one of the Cold War programs that just won't die) was flying non-stop all over Iraq with way too many frequent flights to re-arm in Kuwait (they do not carry the pay load our other cheaper aircrafts carry).


It's like you have to feel that everything went into chaos simply because we got sand on our boots. Get over your rediculous stubborness and actually try to look at this with honesty for what happened. Everyone of your sentiments with this war is simply enslaved to your sentiments of disagreement with the war in the first place. You are refusing to look at it honestly beyond your campus like protests. Get over it. We were always going to go in. We may as well have done it right.

Take a cue from the other individuals on this site who disagree with the war in Iraq, but can still manage to look on it honestly.

It comprehended it just fine. The problem was and is: "A hostile population."

Ummm...NO.......it did not. Months after Baghdad fell, Marines were engaging Sunni fighters in the West that never saw an American prior to. For them, Iraq never fell. They simply were not informed. And with this sentiment the insurgency was built.

Tell you what, join a police force of 12 and enter into a gang ridden neighborhood defended by 50 gun toting criminals. When someone tells you that you had trouble because of your numbers, go ahead and tell them that it was because of the "hostile population."

The "hostile population" grew with the sentiment that they had a chance to win. We gave them that deception and they were exponentially emboldened. The came the international terrorists to back them up and organize them. We and innocent Iraqis have been paying for it ever since.

This sentiment that the entire problem was that we went there in the first place is played out and senseless. We were always going to go and it didn't matter under which President. You may as well criticize American efforts abroad by simply standing in the corner with your arms crossed and stating that the whole problem is that we left our borders in the first place.

That is exactly correct. Democracy is a noble thing. But starting a war for the purpose of forcing a nation to have a democratic government is not a great purpose for starting a war.

Say's you. Try living in misery and oppression all of your life. I haven't been anywhere in the third world that hasn't looked upon an American life without starry eyes. I'm afraid wars for revenge aren't great purposes. Wars in the support of the suffering are. You use words like "force" and "illigitimate" as words to hammer an exaggeration across. The vast majority of Iraq were more than happy to see Hussein and his sons go. The majority freely voted for their futures.

In your stubborn protesting you are siding with the part of the population that want their good old oppression over others and their dictator back. They are the problem. It ius not us. It is not the voters. And it is not the Iraqi government struggling to emerge beyond the corruption of the Arab tradition. You are unwittingly supporting the very thing in the Middle East that creates the Al-Quedas.

 

[Australianlibertarian]

A) This wasn't just an ordinary terrorist, he was one of the terrorists responsible for the 1993 WTC bombing, he committed that crime with Ramzi Yousef and Yousef is K.S.M.'s nephew (the same KSM that orchestrated 9-11.

B) It doesn't matter if they were collaborating or not, the fact that Saddam Hussein was harboring a known terrorist who attacked the U.S. is grounds for war, we will make no distinction between terrorists and those nations that harbor terrorists.

But that is the problem. What I am suggesting is that the crappy refugee and asylum laws that Europe and (and to some degree) Australia, may allow terrorists or terrorist financiers to live in these nations. So does that mean Australia (hypothetically) is inadvertantly supporting terrorism, if we unwittingly let in a terrorist via asylum laws?

Don't get me wrong I support your view in regards to Saddam and his condoning of terrorism, all I am pointing to is that this agressive stance could also be used against allies that have unwittingly let terrorists through dodgy asylum claims.

 

[MSgt]

But that is the problem. What I am suggesting is that the crappy refugee and asylum laws that Europe and (and to some degree) Australia, may allow terrorists or terrorist financiers to live in these nations.

This is exactly the problem in the European region. Not a single European state-not even the United Kingdom-has successfully integrated its Muslim minority into the mainstream society. While the UK has made the most progress, countries like France and Germany have time bombs in their midst, large, excluded Muslim populations the native majority regards as hopelessly inferior. If you wish to see bigotry alive and well (beyond the individual prejudices of other regions), visit continental Europe. Read about the inner- city of Marseilles or the Muslim suburbs of Paris. Read about Berlin-Kreuzberg. Read about the immigrant quarters of virtually any major city on the continent. The worst American slum offers more opportunity for self-improvement to its residents than any opf Europe's soul-killing Muslim ghettos.

It wasn't a random choice by the 9/11 plotters that led them to do so much of their preperation in Europe. They knew that American Muslim communities wouldn't offer hospitalitiy to terrorists. But, Germany, France, Spain, and even Britian contain embittered Islamic minorities glad to see any part of the West get the punishment it "deserves." The American and European experiences with immigrants have been profoundly different. In continental Europe immigrants were never given a chance to become respected members of their host societies. And now they have given up trying. It is a prescription for tragedy.

So does that mean Australia (hypothetically) is inadvertantly supporting terrorism, if we unwittingly let in a terrorist via asylum laws?

No. Terrorists merely take advantage of the social system.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

"Ties" does not equal collaboration or operational cooperation.
The US has (and many other countries have) "ties" and "links" to aQ.

The real assertion that's being made and refuted is that Iraq and aQ were in cahoots to attack the US. To date, there's no reliable evidence for this charge.
​

The hope of some is that the semantic connotations of "ties" and "links" will be conflated with their denotations leaving the impressionable with the impression that Osama Hussein and Saddam bin Laden were about to launch poison-spraying, flying, Iraqi robots of terror “targeting the United States.”

 

[Simon W. Moon]

The more vaguely one interprets Cheney's comments, the more "correct" they are. The more strictly the comments are interpreted, the less meaningful content the comments have (or, alternately, the less "correct" they are).

 

[Stinger]

"Ties" does not equal collaboration or operational cooperation.

A claim that was not made.

The US has (and many other countries have) "ties" and "links" to aQ.

Are you really trying to equate what you are asserting as ties and links to aQ with those Saddam had and wanted to further, especially once the sanctions went away?

The real assertion that's being made and refuted is that Iraq and aQ were in cahoots to attack the US. To date, there's no reliable evidence for this charge.

​

Who has made such an assertion. Support of aQ goals, yes. Assisting them with means and materials, yes. Joint operations, no.

 

[Iriemon]

Good god. Can't you criticize with honesty?

The military used force to remove the Saddam regime. Iraqi Democracy came from Iraqis freely willing to brave bombs and threats to cast votes. There is nothing about their new government that military force created.

IMO, your implicit assertion that the new Iraqi Govt had nothing to do with the US invasion by force on Iraq is dishonest.

The budget is not the problem. The problem is where the money is spent.

Usual case.

Very simplistic. I have already remarked on the idiocy of the NeoCon plan. You actually believe that this effort stopped with this? There was more to this than a simple idea of NeoCon fantasy. I have explained to you before about the RMA and there long time collaberation with Clintonian ethics in war and Rumsfeld's quest to prove his theories of warfare correct in collaberation with the Defense Industry.

What you stated above, was just surface blaming. This is like staring at a compound fracture and deliberately stating that the open wound is the problem.

Also simplistic. You may as well have been his right hand man. Rumsfeld was wrong. Forgive me for countering your claims, but I happened to have been there and seen it first hand. I also may have just a tiny bit more experience with military affairs and tactics than you. Rumsfeld's plan of a minimum troop force worked because of the troop on the ground who is trained to be reactive and creative in his tactics. The ground plan to Baghdad was completely rewritten as our flanks became more exposed. And I'm nbot talking about the normal fog of war and the ever changing battlefield tempo. I am talking about entire plans of marches and priorities. We were continually having to sweep to our flanks, because we hadn't the forces to protect us. We were continually sending troops backwards, because we hadn't the forces to protect supply lines. And the reason Iraq fell into chaos shortly after we hit Baghdad, was because we purposefully stayed away from the bigger cities (where the majority of the faithful fled). This was because we didn't have the troop strength to commence urban operations on such a grand scale.

And during all of this, there was absolutely zero backup. The assaulting forces was it. You are assuming that Rumsfeld was right because the military forces were able to reach Baghdad without it turning into a disaster.

However, with the correct troop force, most of the fighting would not have even happened and we would have had a "beat cop" on every corner throughout the Sunni Triangle. Most immediate rebellious behavior in the Triangle would have simplkky been discouraged. They would have had no doubt that they were defeated. Instead we were facing off with Sunni insurgence months later who never saw an American troop after Baghdad fell and "Mission Accomplished" was spewed out on television sets. The snow ball we incapable of dealing with turned into an avalanche.

You sum it up in the last paragraph. The failure was is the expectation that Iraqis would great us as liberators. The Rumsfeld neocons didn't think we needed 1/2 a million troops because they had a fantasy that we could make up a reason to bomb, invade, and occupy Iraq and they would just love us for it.

Originally Posted by Iriemon
And the chance of that happening, especially when it became clear our reason for attacking was false, was small, and made nil by the way we have conducted our effort.

Remember what I said about the White House's focus on empty promises of WMD and links to Al-Queda instead of focusing on what they should have? I said it allowed our European "allies" and anti-Americans everywhere to focus on simplistic things that merely cheapen the greater objective.

This is what you do.

I see. Compared to the much more complicated and depth analysis of yours that if we just had more troops everything would have been peachy.

We managed. We should not have had to manage. We are the strongest military in history. And we had to scrounge for bullets and food. This war wasn't as comfortable for those that had to fight it. Our supply support and lack of troop support was a major problem. There were times that we slowed the advance because we were out of feul. This is what happens when the assaulting force remains the assaulting force throughout the campaign with absolutely no relief.

You are still missing the point.

You're correct. I am. You are complaining about tactics in the invasion and criticizing the Administration for it. Fair enough. But you cannot deny that with weeks the US military had completely defeated the Iraqi army and taken Baghdad and the other major Iraqi cities.

Missing the point. We should have showed up to Baghdad with the troop force needed to occupy. Not compensate for its absence from the Kuwaiti border.

I am actually trying to hammer this into your head of what occurred behind the television screen. What you saw as "effective" could have easily been noneffective.

Completely missing the point. We were effective. Rumsfeld's plan was not.

You're missing the point. The real problem was not in the tactical plans or problems in defeating the Iraq army. I'll take your word for it that Rumsfled designed the plan for invading Iraq, that it was terrible, and the guys on the ground compensated for it with their own initiative.

But the real problem was the basis for the attack and in the fanciful expectation of how Iraqis would react to our invasion and occupation.

I agree that with realistic analysis of occupation of Iraq after the defeat of the Iraqi army, anyone familiar with the history and culture of Iraq should have anticipated that vast segments of the Iraqi population and Muslims would not accept the humiliation of defeat and occupation by infidel forces, that the Sunni minority that had ruled Iraq for decades would not accept Shiite rule under a new democracy, that they would resist, and that the conflict between Shiites and Shia would inevitably result in a civil war struggle for power.

I agree, it should have been realized that by misrepresenting the evidence as to Iraq's WMDs it would make our attack on Iraq look pretextual and unjustified, which would result in more Iraqis and Muslims resisting the attack and occupation.

I agree, it should have been realized, that with tactics and behavior of torturing people, breaking into their homes, locking people away in secret, Abu Grave, etc. etc., large segments of Iraqis and Muslims would look at us as unjust occupiers instead of liberators.

Yes. I agree with you that all that should have been anticipated, and we should have realized that to effectively control and secure Iraq we'd need a million men there for decades. And I agree that Rumsfeld, Cheney, and the rest of the neocon crowd who suggested otherwise were completely wrong. And I agree that by not being honest about all this stuff, the Administration mislead the American people, the Iraqi people, and the world, which has the consequence now that most do not support a war they were mislead about.

We all agree that all was a mistake. If not outright fraud.

 

[Iriemon]

You are so infuriating. This is like a professor discussing nuclear weaponry with a teenager who professes to know more about it by claiming that the whole problem is that we should not have developed it in the first place.

...

It's like you have to feel that everything went into chaos simply because we got sand on our boots. Get over your rediculous stubborness and actually try to look at this with honesty for what happened. Everyone of your sentiments with this war is simply enslaved to your sentiments of disagreement with the war in the first place. You are refusing to look at it honestly beyond your campus like protests. Get over it. We were always going to go in. We may as well have done it right.

"We" were not always going to go in. It was Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfawitz and the rest of the Project for a New American Century neocon crowd who were always going to go in.

There is no way to "have done it right" when you start a war based upon false pretenses, misrepresentations, mistakes, and a complete lack of understanding as to the political ramifications of the undertaking.

If my position is infuriating to you, it is because it is based upon logic, reasoning, history, and the facts about what have happened. We have had 4 years in Iraq no to "have done it right" and there is no sign that the basic problem of a huge segment of the Iraqi population, the Muslim population, and the rest of the world believe that the US attack and occupation of Iraq is wrong.

Even if we accept your basic proposition as true -- that everything would have been peachy but for the poor leadership of the civilian government in this country, well all I can say is that is the way our country is run. The same sentiments were raised about the Vietnam war. The lesson unfortunately wasn't learned from that war, it wasn'te learned from the Russian invasion of Afganistan, it wasn't learned from centuries of European colonialism, and so now we are learning it the hard way again.

The fact is we do have a civilian leadership in this country, along with hordes of people like me who disagree with the use of a long term committment of military force unless it is in a situation where the attack and long term commitment is necessary and justified as a legitimate act of defense of our nation from attack, or the attack of an ally or other nations, or where there is an international or regional consensus that use of force is necessary and justified.

Take a cue from the other individuals on this site who disagree with the war in Iraq, but can still manage to look on it honestly.

Respectfully, it is you who is looking at the Iraq war unrealistically. It is you who is Monday morning quarterbacking here, claiming that if we had just had different tactics during the invasion or a few more men everything would have been peachy. That is as unrealistic as the proposition the neocons sold us for the invasion in the first place. There is no way the US, an infidel nation, could have attack and invaded Iraq based upon false pretenses, put in a government that deposed the large minority that had been ruling Iraq for decades, and then expect that there would not have been a resistance to our actions. That is just fantasy.

Ummm...NO.......it did not. Months after Baghdad fell, Marines were engaging Sunni fighters in the West that never saw an American prior to. For them, Iraq never fell. They simply were not informed. And with this sentiment the insurgency was built.

This is just crazy. You're arguing that the fact we unjustly attacked Iraq and desposed the Sunnis from power had nothing to do with the Sunni resistance, and it was all because they just "simply were not informed" that the Iraqi army had been defeated. C'mon.

Tell you what, join a police force of 12 and enter into a gang ridden neighborhood defended by 50 gun toting criminals. When someone tells you that you had trouble because of your numbers, go ahead and tell them that it was because of the "hostile population."

Sure. If there weren't 50 hostile gun toting criminals there, 12 police would be fine.

The "hostile population" grew with the sentiment that they had a chance to win. We gave them that deception and they were exponentially emboldened. The came the international terrorists to back them up and organize them. We and innocent Iraqis have been paying for it ever since.

Your contention that the fact the US invaded and occupied Iraq on false pretenses and deposed the ruling minority had nothing to do with the fact that there is a "hostile population" (your phrase, not mine) is just nonsense. If we had a million troops there, there might be some higher level of security (and a lot more dead Americans) but there would still be a hostile population. Probably more so.

 

[Iriemon]

Originally Posted by Iriemon
That is exactly correct. Democracy is a noble thing. But starting a war for the purpose of forcing a nation to have a democratic government is not a great purpose for starting a war.

Say's you. Try living in misery and oppression all of your life. I haven't been anywhere in the third world that hasn't looked upon an American life without starry eyes. I'm afraid wars for revenge aren't great purposes. Wars in the support of the suffering are. You use words like "force" and "illigitimate" as words to hammer an exaggeration across. The vast majority of Iraq were more than happy to see Hussein and his sons go. The majority freely voted for their futures.

In your stubborn protesting you are siding with the part of the population that want their good old oppression over others and their dictator back. They are the problem. It ius not us. It is not the voters. And it is not the Iraqi government struggling to emerge beyond the corruption of the Arab tradition. You are unwittingly supporting the very thing in the Middle East that creates the Al-Quedas.

1. Opposing the US attack on Iraq does not equate to supporting or siding with Hussein. I have not heard you arguing the US should attack and occupy North Korea or Cuba or any of the other handful of totalitarian regimes where people live in misery. Is it fair to say you are supporting or siding with the North Korean or Cuban governments?

2. No nation has the right to unilaterally attack another nation simply because it disapproves of its form of government. A rule otherwise is not supported by any concept of international law. It doesn't matter that you and I think democracy is the best thing ever. That doesn't give our nation the right to attack another just because it isn't a democracy.

The Germans thought national socialism was great, and that unifying Europe under a new order where the natural law of leadership by the superior races would be the best system of government. That did not justify Germany attacking and occupying the nations of Europe. The Soviets thought that unifying the world under international communism where the workers would be liberated in a glorious new order was the best system of government. That did not give the SU the right to occupy the nations of Eastern Europe.

A rule of international law that one nation has the right to attack and invade another because it doesn't approve of its government has never been recognized, and can never work as a matter of international law.

As a practical matter, it also is a questionable proposition. When you start a war losts of unexpected and bad things can happen. Lots of people can die and the country destroyed which makes people unhappy. You talk about the misery of the Iraqis under Hussein; look at the misery they've had to endure the last four years. Lots of people who were happy with the existing regime will be unhappy. Lots of people will resent a foreign power coming in and occupying their country and be unhappy. Other governments that resent one nation bullying another will be unhappy. All of which undermines any attempt to have them accept the form of government we think is best.

It is up to the people of the nation to decide whether they want to shed their blood to fight and die for a different kind of government. It is not the right of another nation to make that decision.