Of course. Under Hussein the Iraqi government was secular. Corrupt, but secular. Now the entire country is caught up in religious wars between different Islamic factions. All sides are, however, Islamic - with the inevitable consequences for women.

When Bush Jr. invaded Iraq, anyone who looked beyond the propaganda pushed by the US government and the complicit US media knew that the invasion was unjustified. Hussein had no interest in terrorists, he had no WMDs.

Bush knew this, and deliberately misled the American public. I remember seeing his State of the Union speech, where he spent a lot of time preparing the public for the coming invasion. He quoted hard numbers of weapons in Iraq - and I thought "he's lying, how can he expect to get away with that". I downloaded the transcript of the speech: he didn't lie, the speech was very carefully crafted to mislead: the numbers were from 1991, i.e., the first Iraq invasion.

Bush, Cheney, Powell, and everyone else who was complicit in this unprovoked invasion of a sovereign country should have been prosecuted by international courts for war crimes.

It doesn't matter that Hussein was a corrupt dictator: this was none of our business. Instead, we invaded, killed Hussein, destroyed the infrastructure, and - after unbelievable costs in lives (130,000) and money (how many trillions?), we are leaving things far worse than we found them.

"Mission Accomplished" indeed.

And? We were expecting any different?

Our motives in going there were not to liberate Iraq, or because we thought Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. Our motives were to allow Halliburton and company to pick the coffers of our nation clean, which we did.

Our mission was accomplished.

Hussein had no interest in terrorists

Wait, is that excluding the ones he was openly and proudly paying, or the ones he was proven to be clandestinely supporting?

he had no WMDs.

Wait, I always get confused. So he didn't have WMD, except for what we sold him, and that he demonstrably used on the Iranians and Kurds, and that we found hundreds of sites with nerve and mustard gas (among other things) and well over 100 tons of uranium ore, but those never existed, and we sold them to him anyway.

Sorry, I'm just not as good as many to be able to hold completely oxymoronic threads, and still blame Bush. So can ya give a brother a hand?

Our motives in going there were not to liberate Iraq, or because we thought Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.

As I recall, those were sidelines at the time. The job was to stop Iraq menancing his neighbors, our allies. Most of those debunking of "motives" are easily set on fire.

Because they're made of straw.

...the notion that we can spread democracy like Skippy peanutbutter.

Reminds me of that ol' country/western song: "well, you spreeeaaaad your love aroooooound like peanut butter,
and now
you got yourself
in a jam."

o.O

@Unix-Jedi: Where to start, where to start.

Let's take your last point first: menacing allies. You know, menacing is actually just fine, as long as actions don't follow. Otherwise, the US would have long since invaded North Korea, which menaces South Korea pretty regularly.

Anyway, the country Hussein spent most of his time menacing was Iran, which is not exactly our good friend. He occasionally claimed to want to send some missiles in the direction of Israel, but so do lots of other countries. Heck, the Palestinians actually do it, on a pretty regular basis.

Then the WMD: What "hundreds of sites with nerve and mustard gas" would you be referring to? According to the official Congressional report released in 2006, three years after the invasion, the US recovered around 500 old, degraded weapons that contained nerve and/or mustard gas. These were weapons left over from the 1980s (i.e., not destroyed 1991), and were no no longer directly usable. The people who wrote the report did their very best to play these old, useless shells as WMDs, but in fact they were more like highly dangerous garbage.

Uranium ore - so what? Iraq had no refining facilities. Had they tried to build such, a uranium refining plant would have been impossible to hide from the ongoing UN inspections. Uranium ore without refining facilities is only slightly dangerous garbage.

In short: You've been drinking the kool-aid.

A simple searve of the DOD website will show that we recoverd both mustard gas and sarin gas - both of which are WMDs

Well for some reason Hillary voted for it as well as many other Democrats. But of course many NATO countries, with their own intelligence services, agreed with the WMD as current.

But it really doesn't matter. Hussein was 69 when he was executed 2006. What was his life expectancy if we hadn't invaded. Let's call it 71. So if in 2008 he died of natural causes, where would Iraq be?

Look at Egypt. It was nominally a popular uprising of the people. Mubarak's trial was conducted with him on a gurney.

"Anyway, the country Hussein spent most of his time menacing was Iran, which is not exactly our good friend. "

Well, there was that little issue of invading Kuwait, which we were and are on pretty good terms with.

But let's take a step back and remind ourselves of what this was really all about. It's still true that the best defense is a good offense. Bush and the neocons reasoned that if they could transform the culture of the Middle East, they could deny future terrorist groups funding and support in that region, which would make it impossible to organize another large-scale terrorist operation in that part of the world.

So why Iraq? What Unix said about Hussein supporting terrorist groups is backed by documents that were captured during the invasion, and there were numerous UN sanctions against Iraq that Hussein was defying on a regular basis. So there seemed to be political cover for the project. More importantly is the very thing Amy mentioned -- Iraq was already, to some extent, a Westernized nation. (BTW, Hussein gets no credit for that -- most of it happened before he rose to power.) That was the real motivation -- Iraq was regarded as a country that could be "seeded", and in turn would seed other areas in the Middle East. A ridiculous idea? Well, it worked in Japan and Germany after WWII.

Bush's biggest mistake was under-estimating the committment that would be required. And perhaps over-estimating the committment of the American people, who since Bush have twice elected a banana-republic-dictator-wannabee as President. Back when the Iraq War started, I worried that what Bush was undertaking would require a 50-year committment.

And what of Afghanistan? After all, the motivations that allegedly did not exist for invading Iraq, unquestionably did exist for invading Afghanistan. Yet, 12 years later, we are on the verge of surrender there, and Afghanistan returning to its pre-9/11 state now looks like the best possible outcome. Once we leave, Islamic terrorist groups will have the run of the house there. Meanwhile, we'll be sucking up to the Palis who are raining rockets on our ally Israel, and and allowing Saudis to bypass airport security. You can bet that nations like Poland are looking at all this and wondering if it would be better to be aligned with Russia after all.

Under Hussein the Iraqi government was secular
This is false; that's like saying the Soviet Union was secular. It was not.
The Iraqi state oppressed non-Arabs and/or non-Sunnis and there was a cult of Saddam.

@ParatrooperJJ: Yes, absolutely. As I said, we found around 500 old, decayed shells containing nerve and mustard gas that had been missed in the 1991 invasion. They were corroded to the point of no longer being usable. Of course, the headlines trumpeted these as a success, because it was damned embarrassing to be proven wrong: Hussein had no active WMD programs and had been unable to produce any WMDs since 1991

@Cousin Dave: Kuwait was the reason for the 1991 invasion. That was justified; it was also short and effective. Kuwait had zippo to do with the 2003 invasion.

And what about Afghanistan? There was a justification to go hunt down Al Queda, but thinking that we could actually invade, conquer and civilize the whole country? There may have been justification, but it was utterly stupid. In-and-out, punish Al Queda, that's all it ever should have been.

I forgot: "Once we leave, Islamic terrorist groups will have the run of the house there."

So you want to occupy the entire Middle East? And lots of Asia? How do you propose to pay for than.

Anyway, take a step back and think for a minute: why do these terrorist groups hate the USA so much? Could it be because we keep invading them, overthrowing them, and telling them how to run their countries? If you poke at a wasp nest, you are likely to get stung. Best just to leave it alone.

...why do these terrorist groups hate the USA so much? Could it be because we keep invading them, overthrowing them, and telling them how to run their countries?

No, I'm pretty sure the reasons are way more complex than that. Firstly, it has to do with our religious freedoms. They detest that we are more tolerant of others than they are. Secondly, it's not just the USA, it's the rest of the free world that also tolerates others. These terrorist groups hate us for what we have and what they don't have. And, too, I think it's mostly because the people in these terrorist groups are brainwashed into believing that which is just not true. They're not allowed to think for themselves. If they were, do you honestly think they would choose to sacrifice themselves based on bullshit promises of eternal life with 72 freakin' virgins? I'm sorry but anyone in their right mind would question the validity of that. These people are bass ackwards and there's no hope of changing that any time soon. They more than likely hate themselves just as much as they hate what they don't understand. Until they are allowed to be tolerant of others (which the Q'uran teaches they must not be) they will be forever fighting. If it wasn't the USA, it'd be another country/religion/way of life they disagree with. They do what they're told. And they're told to kill the infidel, which is ANYone who isn't them.

we keep invading them
Tsarist Russia/Soviet Union/post SU Russia killed many, many more muslims than did the "west".

Hussein had no interest in terrorists...

Saddam Hussein promised $10,000 to the families of suicide bombers who attacked Israel or the West. He later upped that amount to $25,000.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-202_162-505316.html

Hussein had no ... WMDs.

The Kurds and the Iranians killed by Iraqi WMDs would disagree with you.

The majority of the Western world's intelligence agency disagreed with you - all issuing reports the said Hussein had WMDs.

Leading Democrats also believed he had WMDs:

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." ~ President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." ~ Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." ~ Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." ~ Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others dated Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." ~ Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." ~ Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." ~ Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others dated Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." ~ Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that [Saddam Hussein] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." ~ Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." ~ Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction." ~ Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." ~ Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force; if necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." ~ Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." ~ Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." ~ Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." ~ Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. [W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real.... ~ Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

Could it be because we keep invading them, overthrowing them, and telling them how to run their countries?

Overthrowing them? We overthrow terrorist groups? And that's bad?

Telling them how to run their countries? Terrorist groups run countries? And the world is better off if they do?

a_random_guy:

Try the Grape, not that Cherry Kool-Aide you're drinking.

Let's take your last point first: menacing allies. You know, menacing is actually just fine, as long as actions don't follow. Otherwise, the US would have long since invaded North Korea, which menaces South Korea pretty regularly.

And when they Invaded, we did what?

Anyway, the country Hussein spent most of his time menacing was Iran

Had been. Until he invaded and conquered Kuwait, with our response.

Then the WMD: What "hundreds of sites with nerve and mustard gas" would you be referring to?

Well, there's the slight issue of all the missing weapons that were actually tagged by the IAEA inspections.

Like the fully-weaponized tons of mustard gas. That wasn't there when we invaded in '03.

Yannow, before Ritter got caught with his hands in the young girls pants and was outraged and critical of how much Iraq was hiding and getting away with.

According to the official Congressional report released in 2006, three years after the invasion, the US recovered around 500 old, degraded weapons that contained nerve and/or mustard gas.

That's nice. Doesn't prove your point or disprove others.

These were weapons left over from the 1980s (i.e., not destroyed 1991), and were no no longer directly usable.

We had soldiers hit with an IED with binary sarin.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4997808/#.UUs8gSV_58A

It was an unmarked shell.

Now, this is very illustrative to those of us who can think, and I'm sure Paratrooper JJ and others in the military can attest to how well things are marked, even in the (fully-professional) Iraqi military.

Fire a HE shell when you wanted gas, got problems. Fire a gas when you wanted HE, even worse.

So "insurgents" grabbed this shell out of a - unmarked stockpile - and set it up to blow up American troops. Not knowing they actually had a binary sarin shell.

Which Iraq did not have in the early 90s, mind you.

The people who wrote the report did their very best to play these old, useless shells as WMDs, but in fact they were more like highly dangerous garbage.

I really can't rebut you much more effectively than you're managing yourself. Either they're useless, or they're "highly dangerous".

Either way, you claimed 1) there was no WMD, and 2) that was Bush's claim. Well, 1) you just admitted was actually true, even avoiding the uranium (which Iraq had not turned over per the cease-fire agreement, which then authorized Use of Force to recover), and 2) Bush's claim wasn't that there were WMD, but that we weren't going to wait until there was a threat.

In the interim, Iraq in violation of the ceasefire shot at our people daily, refused to allow inspections, and continued work on bombs, bomb making, and hiding said same. In violation of the ceasefire, which authorized use of force to enforce.

Uranium ore - so what?

It was there. It wasn't supposed to be. It was valuable, if nothing else, but:

IT WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE CEASE FIRE WHICH BY ITSELF (much less the hundreds of other violations) AUTHORIZED FORCE TO CORRECT.

Iraq had no refining facilities. Had they tried to build such, a uranium refining plant would have been impossible to hide from the ongoing UN inspections.

There were no ongoing UN inspections and hadn't been for five years prior to the invasion.

Which was a violation of the cease fire which....

As Cousin Dave alludes to there was more at work here. For better or worse, invading Iraq - the siege was taking up almost 50% of our total logistic forces. (Remember the Clinton "peace dividend? Lots and lots of unglamorous logistics equipment and capabilities gone.)

That was not sustainable.

There's lots of other reasons.

But really, when you deny that there were WMD (ignoring all the other issues at play and such), and then immediately admit to knowledge that there were such....

Time to change the Kool-Aide.

The 1987 attack on the USS Stark was reason enough. That's my step back. Sometimes the enemy of my enemy is just another enemy.

The author seems to have forgotten to mention the rape rooms, and other tourist delights off the beaten path. Nobody from CNN is crowing about the access fees they paid to report from Baghdad either. The good old days were not as good as they are purported to be, sometimes. Depending on who you are, of course.

They're not allowed to think for themselves. If they were, do you honestly think they would choose to sacrifice themselves based on bullshit promises of eternal life with 72 freakin' virgins?

Well we in america can think for our selves. And most of americans are christians who believe that

An all powerful all knowing all loving god God created everything, but for got about creating the female of the species until day 8.

punished adam and eve for not knowing the difference between right and wrong when he created them not knowing the difference between right and wrong

couldnt be bothered to kill only his bastard angel grandkids pillaging and raping across the face of the earth so he drown everything except for 8 humans and 2-14 of EVERY SINGLE ANIMAL SPECIES ON THE PLANET, who magically required no food for nearly 6 months until the boat landed

confounded the launguage of mankind for trying to build a tower to heaven which probably failed to reach 300 feet in elevation

caused Mary to be born to a virgin, magically impregnated her with himself, spent 30 yrs telling people he was not god, sacrificed himself to himself to save us from the conditions he subjected us to in order to save us from eternal torment that he created for failing to believe in him even though he left no proof of his existance

How the fuck us ANY OF THAT SHIT MORE becuase those who believe in it are free to leave it without the threat of being killed?

How the fuck us ANY OF THAT SHIT MORE believable becuase those who believe in it are free to leave it without the threat of being killed?

Believable seemed to have disappeared from the first comment

Hipster Hindsight. How empowering it must be to be able to wag your finger at those benighted souls who voted overwhelmingly for the
War Powers resolution. Including our super-brill VP and Secretary of Defense and also, bonus, someone who's next up to bat for the role of Progressive Claymation President. But, hey, Boooooosh and Evil Cheney. That was then and this is now. So there.

You might want to actually think about articles about the Middle East, research the context and conclusions, before jumping on the nearest bandwagon that fits your burning need to scold. The author of the article cited is a Good Person doing Good Deeds. She is in the business of helping women in the middle east. You'd think that would be the Full Employment Act right there but this is a lady who sees problems for women everywhere. Actual quote: "women's discussion [?] can go on only under Obama." How open-minded! Someone who discerns "problems for women" even in Fat City USA isn't going to have a heard time finding them in Iraq. Obviously, she's full-tilt overtly statist. And then some. Her family had a personal attachment to Saddam Hussein. Even and despite personal knowledge of Saddam Hussein's vicious and evil ways, she cried when he died. Um, okay, no Stockholm Syndrome here. It's complicated!

Having considered the author's background, and clear bias against the U.S. and for finding and promoting "problems for women," let's consider her actual substantive point: women are less well off now than before the Iraq War. This is unserious. She was in a (relatively) well-off and connected family that was tied in to Saddam Hussein so, duh, that tribe (yes, it's a tribe) is not doing as well now. Women hardest hit.

The recent change that is the ostensible point of this article is that women are no longer guaranteed equal treatment under the Family Statue in Iraq. What a surprise, Islamists gonna Islam. That was, like, totally unanticipated. Gee, do you think if we (thanks, Obama) hadn't pulled out all/most of our forces and punted on interim governing this shit would be going on?

You know, menacing is actually just fine, as long as actions don't follow.

Not if you're the one being menaced.

The whole point of menacing is making the menaced one(s) think actions will follow and cause them to live in constant fear.

Overthrowing socialists in the Middle East, or in any way contributing to their overthrow is idiotic. They are not going to be replaced with Western-Style democracies.

No one's saying these socialist Middle Eastern countries are run by great guys.

They are not going to be replaced with Western-Style democracies.
That nailed it. Germany was occupied by millions of soldiers and divided after WWII, and the Marshall plan funneled money into it. Iraq is much bigger the Germany, with a fraction of the soldiers to occupy it. Bush and Cheney were ignorant about the whole region.

"P.S. AMartel, your argument isn't any stronger when you come off like an insulting asshole while making it."

Why call him/her out on this when half the commenters on this blog including myself are guilty of this infraction?

Cause we build up to smacking people with our dicks over a couple of months, plus when we are assholes we're dumping on the morons who obviously have no clue, not being the moron with no clue.

Wow. I don't know of a better way to bring out the ignorant than to mention, "WMDs!"

Iraq had an active nuclear program - so much so that the Israelis bombed it.

It's an industrial nation, not a desert paradise of oases and swaying camels. Since the Allied occupation, the insurgent have attacked with chlorine gas bombs; these are studiously ignored by people intent on demonizing political leaders - which is a safe release of emotional energy for the habitually offended.

By the way - do you, anyone, have an objection to Haliburton?

Maybe you want to go look whose administration got them started.

And I am not going to apply a Two Wrongs fallacy. What was wrong before is still wrong, and isn't excusable because a different faction's favorite is in charge.

Oh lujlp, there was no build up for you to be an asshole. You come by it all natural like.

"We have no business invading other countries that have not attacked and do not pose imminent danger to us, no matter how gleeful the jerks leading us get about the notion that we can spread democracy like Skippy peanutbutter"

Could not have said it better if you paid me. I never could understand how we went from Afghanistan to Iraq.

"why do these terrorist groups hate the USA so much? Could it be because we keep invading them, overthrowing them, and telling them how to run their countries?"

Well there is that.

Speaking as an outsider, I think that most countries that do hate Americans hate them because of the wealth and freedom they possess without even realizing it on a day to day basis. Other countries do spend far more, like the UAE, but most are not as obvious about it.

The American media is very in-your-face, and most other countries don't have any choice but to watch and hear about American culture. Up here in Canada, about 90% of the channels we get are American. When other countries like Africa and Afghanistan see the richness and freedoms of the US that they don't have, they are naturally outraged when most citizens can't afford to feed themselves.

The US is not alone. There was a time when Canadians were able to slap a flag on a backpack for safe passage. Nowadays, we're actually more likely to get kidnapped in Mexico then you guys!

The Guardian:
Curveball: How US was duped by Iraqi fantasist looking to topple Saddam

Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi let imagination run wild and became main source for Colin Powell's case for war in 2003

Defector admits to WMD lies that triggered Iraq war

Admissions vindicate CIA's former Europe chief

> We have no business invading other countries
> that have not attacked and do not pose
> imminent danger to us

You are going to be really, really disappointed with the flow of events in the rest of this particular century. This will happen again and again... Our participation and leadership in these crises is not elective.

A third of the planet is still living in primitive, strong-man squalor. This wasn't just about oil (which, you should note, proved to be of essentially no interest to the United States). There will be many other critical resources and compelling interests to defend in that last third of the world.

The lesson we should have learned was not never invade.

The lesson we should have learned was win the peace, not just the war.

To get back the original topic. Iraqi women whose fathers and husband's were Sunnis and members of the Baath party had lots of rights, and perks, everyone else, not so much.

Did you know that electricity is the country of Iraq was only available in Baghdad, and the areas of Baghdad controlled by the Baath party?

Everyone else lived in essentially a 14th century hell hole.
My husband worked in Iraq trying to get power to the country side, and some of the smaller towns. When some areas in Baghdad lost power because of a more even distribution, there was no end to the whining from the international press, how Baghdad had been "better" under Sadaam.

As I see it, this "women's rights" article is just an extension of that whining.

Um, search my blog. I was against the war before I was against the war.

Amy, you, and many other others here (Unix and Conan in particular excepted), as well as the NYT editorial board, have missed the fundamental problem that Saddam posed.

The Bush administration trumpeted WMD [NB: Our Dear Leader and Nobel Peace Prize Winner and Assassin Of Americans voted against the authorization for military force, but promises severe consequences for the Assad regime if they use chemical weapons, which Saddam most certainly had already done. HELLO hypocrisy.] as the reason for changing the Iraqi regime.

[And HELLO irony. The origin of the word assassin: from French, or from medieval Latin assassinus, from Arabic ḥašīšī ‘hashish eater.’

Except irony, like hypocrisy, is an often abused concept that I may have gotten entirely wrong here.]

It was the most easily sellable reason, but not even close to the most compelling. Hint #1: in international affairs, check morality at the door. Hint #2: in international affairs, the choices are almost always between those which suck, and those which suck even more.

There is no assessing the strategic problem without considering the status quo ante. For reasons that would take easily an hour to explain, our strategic position with respect to Saddam had reached a dead end.

That means we were left with a binary choice, either withdraw and hand victory to Saddam, or get rid of him.

In turn, that means, in condemning the decision to get rid of Saddam, you have to account for all the downside risks of quitting the field.

Risk #1: a nuclear arms race between Iraq and Iran, with the attendant possibility of completely, and for a long time, disrupting the flow of a huge amount of energy to the rest of the world.

There are many risks beyond that, but the first should be sobering enough.

Moreover, the mistake Amy, and many others here, and the NYT editorial staff makes is that there is such a thing as a null. It isn't enough to say "Not this".

[BTW, my undergraduate degree is in International Relations. I spent 20 years in the Air Force. I flew combat missions in Desert Storm, and spent three years in the Pentagon on a planning staff. I don't mean that to suggest that what I said is beyond criticism; rather, that, as a first approximation, no one should view my comments as being uninformed.]

I say if they fuck with us, we nuke them. Game over. For example, Afgans supported dudes who flew planes into buildings on our soil. Killed people. I'd convert the sand to glass and the mountains to dust. Innocents, like those of ours killed, collateral of war. War sucks. I do not know if death sucks, yet. It only affects the living as far as I know.

I never could understand how we went from Afghanistan to Iraq.

You know, all those oppressive hell holes look the the same to us.

> I say if they fuck with us, we nuke
> them. Game over.

Them who?

It's fun to say things like that, but you don't mean it. And if you do mean it you're bluffing or wrong...

This isn't the 18th century. The states that are going to be causing us distress from here on out are often barely states at all. The attack of 9/11 had little to do with most people in Afghanistan, but we went in specifically because we knew they'd been hosting bin Laden.

Mass killing is not the solution.

Looking back at how we ended up in Iraq, I think 2 things are valuable to remember and carry with us going forward:

1) Elite consensus, even elite bipartisan consensus, can be tragically, devastatingly, epically wrong.The Iraq failure was foreseen by people, but those people were widely dismissed as cowards, anti-american and worse (and some were. those socialists who led the antiwar rallies weren't the most savory of characters). But it's important to remember that Bush, and Cheney, and the Clintons, and Kerry and Biden, and whole bunch of other people taken seriously still, were disastrously wrong.

2) The costs of all wars in life and money will be much much higher than what policy makers believe and sell us. This was was supposed to cost a couple hundred billion. Or even pay for itself. One trillion plus and we're still not free of it completely.

maybe there's 3, though regime change as a policy is rightfully not popular any more) We should always be cautious about the destabilizing regional effects of displacing a government, even a loathsome one. I suspect Bush and Cheney would have been more reluctant to invade had they known it was likely that toppling Saddam would empower Iran and Islamism across the Middle East and Northern Africa, among other things that are not great for us and our allies.

"The states that are going to be causing us distress from here on out are often barely states at all."

Ah! A gem.

There are those who celebrate the fall of the Soviet Union, not realizing that the fragmented political structure and resulting nuclear-weapons shell game made things much worse for us.

Crid used to be one of these - but here, he releases a conundrum: if you cannot tell who set off the weapon, what do you do?

New York gets blasted today. What happens? Aside from mass panic that evacuates all the other cities and decimates the rest of America in fratricide - panic sees no relatives - somebody has to pay. If the source of any weapon cannot be identified, there is no satisfactory target for the retaliation.

I consider this to be the main reason American authority turns on its own citizens. See HL Mencken.

Disturbing question for all watching the TSA fail: what makes you think the USA doesn't have a nuclear mine buried somewhere?

Crid, and Radwaste bring up a very good point, that "isolationist libertarian thinking" wishes to sweep under the rug.

The big risk of Iran, Iraq, or North Korea developing a nuclear weapon, is not that they will use it directly against, Israel, Japan, South Korea etc. (They may be crazy, but they are not stupid) Plausible deniability is always the third world thugocracy's goal.

The risk is that they will build a small transportable suitcase or car sized nuke, and hand it off to a terrorist group, who will wait a few years and then smuggle it into New York, Paris, LA, London, or any number of places, and detonate the weapon just to cause havoc. We know this is the most likely scenario, because frankly, their missile delivery systems suck.

How the fuck us ANY OF THAT SHIT MORE believable becuase those who believe in it are free to leave it without the threat of being killed?

It's not necessarily more believable, looj, but most of the people that do believe it don't go around blowing up others who don't.

Of course, complaints of the wingnuttery and obvious problems with logic miss the bigger subject here.

Saddam was a bad guy, but he kept the religious nutters from taking over.

So, "women's rights" (ignoring the 'rape rooms' in case any male relative of yours happened to rub Saddam the wrong way), are paramount over everything else?

I'd say that the indictment should be over our failure to loudly and clearly defend our particular experiment, that individual rights are paramount.

We're, for some reason, embarrassed as hell about that, even the people who should be.

Why in the holy hell was a parliamentary system put in place? Why was not a similar system to ours enshrined - here's a list of what the government, religious nutters or not - is allowed to do to be legitimate?

(Well, other than the obvious that it would have prompted a bunch of Americans to say "wait a damn minute..."

http://twitter.com/#!/DanHannanMEP/status/307879137576632321 )

Let's see what the internet has about the background of the complaintant.

Salbi was born in 1970 in Baghdad, Iraq. Her father worked as personal pilot of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Experiencing immediate psychological abuse to her family from Hussein, Salbi chose to dedicate her adult life to the women around the world.

*scratches head*

So, why'd she leave, if it was so good there and all?

"I say if they fuck with us, we nuke them. Game over."

Oh that's a surefire way to world peace that is. Left to you I'm sure we'd have a Utopia on our hands within the week.

You do realize that the global eco-system is interconnected? What you do to one country affects all countries? Fall out carries all over the world. And what happens to the surrounding countries who had nothing to do with it? It's a large price to pay for the entire world because one country is fucking with another.

Also, an eye for an eye and the world goes blind. Do you think the States are the only ones with nukes? North Korea, Iran and Co.? Heard of em? And those are the ones we know about. You nuke them, they nuke you, their buddies get it on it, our buddies get in on it, next think you know everybody's living underground for the next 1000 years. Or until we perfect the space station. That is if anyone survives.

Not to mention, if the States starts a nuclear war, and someone fires back,(and they will....) who gets part of the blast? Canada! I don't want that shit in my backyard, thank you. It has been my experience that a large portion of Americans forget that their foreign policy directly affects Canada, as we share a border. Further, to most third world countries, Canada and the US are seen as the same country, ie North America. We still get heat for Iraq and Afghanistan, and we didn't start that shit. I really don't want to get blamed for firing a nuke up someone's ass, thank you!

"The lesson we should have learned was win the peace, not just the war."

The lesson you should have learned was one not need kill mosquito with cannon.

"You are going to be really, really disappointed with the flow of events in the rest of this particular century."

You are assuming I have any particular hopes left for the human race as a whole....

Wait, WOMEN are facing problems?! In that case, I give a shit .... not.

The girls have cried "misogyny!!" a few times too often.

The big risk of Iran, Iraq, or North Korea developing a nuclear weapon, is not that they will use it directly against, Israel, Japan, South Korea etc. (They may be crazy, but they are not stupid) Plausible deniability is always the third world thugocracy's goal.

The risk is that they will build a small transportable suitcase or car sized nuke, and hand it off to a terrorist group, who will wait a few years and then smuggle it into New York, Paris, LA, London, or any number of places, and detonate the weapon just to cause havoc. We know this is the most likely scenario....

The big risk with Iran is that Ahmadinejad believes all that crazy 12th Imam crap he's been spouting.

Persian Shi'a is still heavily influenced by Zoroastrian philosophy with it's black and white view of the world and good vs. evil end of days scenarios.

If "I'm a dinner jacket" can cause the end of days with a nuclear blast and hasten the coming of the Mahdi, he will. And he won't care about our retaliatory nuclear attack because causing that would actually be his goal.

Conan, you must not be aware that Ahmadinejad does not make those decisions. He's a helpful figurehead that keeps the poor people supporting the regime. Khamenei calls the high level shots. How many years in and people still don't know this stuff.

So, it appears you don't like my philosophy wtf.

"Oh that's a surefire way to world peace that is. Left to you I'm sure we'd have a Utopia on our hands within the week."

Who said I care about world peace Canadian? You are funny - Utopia - wtf you talking about.

"You do realize that the global eco-system is interconnected?"

Nope. Not in the way you think.

"And what happens to the surrounding countries who had nothing to do with it?"

War is hell ain't it.

"Also, an eye for an eye and the world goes blind."

You say the cutest things. I didn't say eye for eye. If and when I go, I go big.

"Not to mention, if the States starts a nuclear war, and someone fires back,(and they will....) who gets part of the blast? Canada!"

Who will fire back? Who is the next brave soul to die a violent, evaporative death. Methinks you cower too much.

"It has been my experience that a large portion of Americans forget that their foreign policy directly affects Canada, as we share a border."

And you think I care. Dude, get real.

"I really don't want to get blamed for firing a nuke up someone's ass, thank you!"

You really are a pussy. You need to get farther away from USA.

"Them who?"

It would have been the Afgans using the thought of my example. To date, we seem to have a pretty good picture of the potential targets for dusting. Remember, we can go smaller nukes. Remember, if you will, that my ROE mean we win - war is hell.

"It's fun to say things like that, but you don't mean it. And if you do mean it you're bluffing or wrong..."

Actually, I mean it. War is serious business. If you go, go Big. If you aren't willing to go Big, don't go.

"Mass killing is not the solution."

Here we disagree. If someone truly believes I will do it, they know, like the Mossad, I will stop at nothing. And, all the time all I wanted was to be left alone.

Conan, you must not be aware that Ahmadinejad does not make those decisions. He's a helpful figurehead that keeps the poor people supporting the regime. Khamenei calls the high level shots. How many years in and people still don't know this stuff.

Khamenei burned a lot of bridges keeping Ahmadinejad in power.

The two engaged in an internal power struggle ... the result of which is Ahmadinejad appears to have been tamed ... for now.

Khamenei represents the status quo while Ahmadinejad wants clerical rule marginalized in favor of nationalism and populist religious fervor.

Early on, many of Iran's power players publicly sided with Khamenei, including the leadership of the Republican Guard.

For a while, it appeared Ahmadinejad would not be allowed to finish his present (and last) term as president. Yet he survived.

What do you think a nutcase with his back against the wall will do?

"War is hell ain't it."

"You say the cutest things. I didn't say eye for eye. If and when I go, I go big."

"Who will fire back? Who is the next brave soul to die a violent, evaporative death. Methinks you cower too much."

"And you think I care. Dude, get real."

Gee, with an attitude like that, I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with the US. Funny thing that. Ever think it's people like you who start the problem on both sides?

"You really are a pussy. You need to get farther away from USA."

Why, because I don't feel like starting a nuclear holocaust? And ever think it's you who needs to get away from us? You have the problem, not us. If anyone should leave, I say pack your bags. Shitheads like you are the problem, not nuclear weapons. If the States didn't have nukes, nobody else would either. The stupid thing is most of your own people don't agree with you.

If the States didn't have nukes, nobody else would either.

That's the most naive statement I've ever read.

And actually, many more agree with Conan that you might think.

I'm one of 'em. There are plenty more.

"What do you think a nutcase with his back against the wall will do?"

Work to keep his head first, and then his position of influence.

Regardless, Ahmadinejad does not command the military. Khamenei does.

"Gee, with an attitude like that, I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with the US."

Your reading comprehension is very low Canadian. Must be a product of public schools. Why does anyone who leaves us alone have a problem with us?I won't count on you watching our back pussy. Other Canadians will, but not you. You must give in to bullies and it has affected you. Or then again maybe you are just a girl. No offense to girls meant, just they don't naturally have the warrior mentality.

> Oh that's a surefire way to world peace that is.

A Canadian has feelings about the use of international military force.

"No offense to girls meant, just they don't naturally have the warrior mentality."

Oh none taken. Your opinions are obviously given little thought before you post them. And I might be a girl, but ten to one says I can still kick your ass. And you don't have a warrior mentality. It's called war mongering.

Crid, do we really wanna get in a pissing match all over again? We've settled this before. And here I thought you'd gone all mature and forward thinking on me!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnzYG0ZkrXg

"That's the most naive statement I've ever read."

Correct me if I'm wrong but you WERE the country that invented them, correct? Or is this another "the US invented the phone" argument?

Correct me if I'm wrong but you WERE the country that invented them, correct?

And no one else could ever have conceived of splitting the atom and using it as a bomb if the US hadn't done it first?

And, if the technology existed, but the US decided to eliminate its entire nuclear arsenal, every other country in the world would destroy theirs, and no other country or organization (terrorist or otherwise) would then build a nuclear weapon ... let alone use it.

Yeppers. The only reason at all that nuclear weapons exist in the world is because the US built them and maintains an arsenal.

"Fools try to wish it away." ~ Rush ("Big Bang")

Or is this another "the US invented the phone" argument?

The US didn't invent the phone - two guys in the US did.

Alexander Graham Bell was born in Scotland and moved to Canada in his twenties. He invented the telephone in Boston.

Elisha Gray was born in Ohio and invented the telephone at his home outside of Chicago.

Oh Jeebus fawk another one.

It may have been invented in Boston, but it was invented by a Canadian. Born in Scotland, but then at that time almost half of all Americans and Canadians alike were born elsewhere. Hell, he died here. Either way, Canadian or Scottish, same thing because at that time, we were both ruled by England. It sure as hell was not invented by an American. Just because Chicago is the home of the thin crust pizza doesn't mean it's an American food.

But I digress.

The only reason the atomic bomb was invented was to create a weapon no country could fight against. Key word here is invented. Created on purpose to kill so many people and create so much collateral damage as to basically destroy the country. Yes, someone would have discovered it eventually. But more than likely, it would have been accidental like so many other wonderful things in the world today. Like insulin, you're welcome.

The US has already detonated two of these travesties in other countries. As in, not a "test', no warning to get the fuck out of dodge, just WHAM, you're dead. So OF COURSE other countries are going to arm themselves with the same weapons as the world's foremost military power. You don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

Ironically most of the weapons being used against you today either were provided to the unfriendlies by your own military, purchased from your country on the black market, or designed based on weapons you came up with.

Maybe, just maybe, weapons and fighting and global pissing matches aren't the answer?

"Like insulin, you're welcome."

Apologies, that was meant for the idiot Dave.

"Let's take your last point first: menacing allies. You know, menacing is actually just fine, as long as actions don't follow"

Just noticed this one. If menacing actions don't follow, what would be the point? Kinda like doing the whole "1.....2......3......with your kids and then bringing them for ice cream. A little counter productive, no?

"And I might be a girl, but ten to one says I can still kick your ass."

I'd enjoy it.

"And you don't have a warrior mentality."

No I don't. I have a warrior attitude and the genetic makeup. I thought that part of me was normal until informed otherwise by NB in the early 70's. I was a 11b40 in Vietnam and had the ability to flip the switch and go all animal. Worked my way through college as a bouncer in a bar - enjoyed it. The Res Indians think I'm crazy and will not mess with me.

"Your opinions are obviously given little thought before you post them."

You can think that but you'd still be wrong. We are on an issue that has been developed since my earliest memories. Probably around 1948. I come from a family of warriors. Decorated men in every war, declared or not, since the Spanish American War, except for Vietnam, including the Afgan and Iraq wars.

"Created on purpose to kill so many people and create so much collateral damage as to basically destroy the country."

Cool, was it not? Made a lot of children, wives and other relatives very happy.

"no warning to get the fuck out of dodge, just WHAM, you're dead."

You have a serious lack of knowledge. I'll allow that since you are a pussy. If people like you were listened to in the past we'd all be speaking German, Japanese or Russian.

"You don't bring a knife to a gun fight."

Probably your most intelligent statement and you stole it from a movie.

"Maybe, just maybe, weapons and fighting and global pissing matches aren't the answer?"

They've been going on since the beginning of time for man. It is what it is. You and your ilk have always been protected by those who man the line. Yet still you whine.

"Like insulin, you're welcome."

"Apologies, that was meant for the idiot Dave."

Shucks mam, and here I thought we were going to do a little rolling around.

The attack of 9/11 had little to do with most people in Afghanistan,

So what, the government they allowed to rule them was complicit. We didnt like our governemnt so we overthrew it, they obviously liked their government well enough

Eye for an eye

I'm more of an eye for a hangnail, your whole fucking familly back three generations and down to the present, and the neighbors and pets for an eye kind of guy.

On the micro level of human life I'm all for peace love and individual liberty, but I belive humanity has a chance to be better than the pond scum most of us currently are, so on the marco level I have no qualms about killing those who try and kill us, or in killing those who stand by and cheer/do nothing

It sure as hell was not invented by an American.

You're like a little dog insisting on running with the big dogs and trying to make up for his lack of heft by yapping.

Yes, someone would have discovered it eventually. But more than likely, it would have been accidental like so many other wonderful things in the world today.

'cause the accidental invention of nuclear fission would have been so much better?

And the accidental invention of nuclear fission by a Third World terrorist group would have been even better?

As in, not a "test', no warning to get the fuck out of dodge, just WHAM, you're dead.

Leaflets were dropped for days on Nagasaki and Hiroshima before the atomic bombs were dropped.

Try to remember that this was a country that had declared war on the United States - and prosecuted that war with extreme viciousness on China, Singapore, Australia, and the rest of Southeast Asia.

The US had a weapon that could inflict damage on its enemies without casualties to its soldiers, sailors, and with only minimal potential casualties among its airmen. So, we should have invaded instead?

wtf:

Uh, WTF?

The only reason the atomic bomb was invented

Tomorrow if it's sunny, go out and look up.

Then tell me who "invented" that?

was to create a weapon no country could fight against.

Funny thing, that tends to be the way those military guys think. If you can build a weapon that's indefensible, then war is obsolete.

That said, the atomic bomb program cost so much, that we could have killed far more with less money.

It cost so much, that 3 separate newspapers noticed the budget numbers were wonky (back before "professional educators took over the schools and people could still do math), and why in the hell *was* the B-29 still being bought and produced...

Key word here is invented.

No. It was engineered. That was the hard part. Not the "invention". The engineering.

It was engineered to be a weapon, and it was invented to stop the war decisively.

It saved the Japanese people and culture. Without the atomic bomb, it would have been bombing, and invasion.

Were you to read some history, you'd see that about 25% of the civilians on Okinawa didn't survive the US invasion.

They're not considered Japanese. (Of the non-military Japanese, essentially all were dead by the end of fighting.)

Created on purpose to kill so many people and create so much collateral damage as to basically destroy the country.

Erm.

Your name is well chosen.

You do realize that in terms of numbers of death, that Hiroshima barely makes the top 5 of the war, right?

Conventional bombs over Tokyo killed over 2x the number the atomic bomb did in Hiroshima.

But more than likely, it would have been accidental like so many other wonderful things in the world today. Like insulin, you're welcome.

You don't accidentally enrich Uranium, or convert to Plutonium.

Sorry, Crid, I think this one is all yours from now on.

No, dood, that's totally cool. I'll mop it up after work.

> Crid used to be one of these

Gonna need a cite fer that, Pilgrim. Otherwise, not so much cleaning up to do...

It's hard to care how teen Canadians feel about our execution of our global responsibilities (including, as they do, defense of all Canadian shoreline, the longest on the planet).

There are naifs who never gave a thought to politics in any consequential way until they opened the newspaper one day (in their thirties or older) and decided that Karl Rove was the meanest person they'd ever heard of, claiming the throne formerly held by Darth Vader or the Wicked Witch of the West. And they wanted this new personage dispatched with in a similarly gratifying (and naive) (and simplistic) narrative; to feel as self-righteous as they did sitting in that theater eating popcorn. As children.

Cousin naifs are blind to the miracles that America's leadership of global economic integration has brought to so much of the globe. The wealth in their own lives is often invisible, too.

Sometimes isolationism is flatly racist; it's thought (if not said) that people of a particular color or faith will just never be able to join the modern world... As if the isolationist heart expressed the benefit of some genetic mutation allowing rapid navigation of democratic, capitalist, and secular society. (This mutation is never apparent to the rest of us, who behave well in modernity because we were taught to by people [parents, mostly] who weren't fucking kidding with their discipline.)

Isolationists are mostly ungrateful. It's ugly because it's such a transparent, shameless violation of the Golden Rule. Women who will quibble for decades over the pennies of distinction in men's wages or who will compose elaborate systems of belief about importance of women in boardrooms and government will harshly disavow sisterhood in the third of humanity where globalization's blessings aren't felt. It's crazy, it's crazy, it's cray-cray-cray... Because feminism is how modernity is measured, and that includes Japan.

Setting aside the morality for a moment —and isn't that a great way to start any weekend?— the isolationists won't recognize that the prophylaxis of geography which secured the United States (if only in retrospect) is gone. We have airlines and boats and communications lines to all the world's Hellholes because we need things from them to make modernity work; resources, labor, and markets. It's about four centuries too late for closing some kind of border.

Modernity has probed the entire enchilada. And we're going to find everything we've ever lost. You may have read that Amazon's Bezos funded an effort which recovered the Apollo rocket engines this week. This was foretold by one of Google Earth's developers. See this speech: Give it twenty minutes at least. Modernity is going to find Amelia Earhart's plane and Jimmy Hoffa's corpse, and we're sure as Hell going to be in touch with everyone who's still alive.

And thus vulnerable to them.

[Hindsighty, and, for that matter a_random_guy] The Iraq failure was foreseen by people, but those people were widely dismissed as cowards, anti-american and worse ... But it's important to remember that Bush, and Cheney, and the Clintons, and Kerry and Biden, and whole bunch of other people taken seriously still, were disastrously wrong.

This is a perfect example of assuming as true that which hasn't been demonstrated.

You use the word "failure", but without the all-important factor: with respect to what?

By all means, take some time to describe the situation on the ground in early 2003, and the other actors and their motivations.

Then propose an alternate course of action, and include the likely consequences.

I'm betting that if you did something more than a cursory job designed to reinforce your existing conclusions, you might very well discover that as bad as the invasion of Iraq turned out to be, that there was no alternative that didn't run a considerable risk of being far, far worse.

But saying at the outset that it was a "failure" is exactly the superficial analysis for which the NYT is justifiably famous. It is but one example, but typical of the breed.

---

[a_random_guy:] Otherwise, the US would have long since invaded North Korea, which menaces South Korea pretty regularly.

You do not appreciate geography. Check out the distance between Seoul (pop 10.5M) and mountains just to the north of the DMZ.

Within which thousands of artillery pieces are tunneled.

---

[Dave B:] I say if they fuck with us, we nuke them. Game over.

There are a number of principles of war (e.g. Mass, Concentrate combat power at the decisive place and time. Objective, etc).

One of the most important is economy of force.

The Germans and the Japanese both were attempting to develop an atomic weapon during WWII.

The German were incredibly close to getting it right, and they had a semi reliable delivery system, (the V2 rocket)

Meanwhile in the Pacific, the Japanese, working on their own atomic weapon, were slaughtering millions of other Asians, and using downed American flyers for live vivisection, and poison gas experiments, and in a few cases, practicing ritual cannibalism.
(Yes, these are the ancestors of the people who now produce those cute little Hello Kitty animaes.)

In addition towards the end of the War, when they knew they were going to lose, the Japanese government had a plan in place to kill all the POW's and I believe, civilian internees prior to a land invasion of the home island, Honshu.

By 1945, over 20 percent of both allied POWs and allied civilians, who had been working in Asia, but had been caught behind the Japanese front, had either died of disease or starved to death in the camps, while the death rate of allied held Pow's was near zero.

Meanwhile, millions of Japanese women and children were slowly starving to death, as remaining agricultural production went to feed the military.

Thank God for Harry Truman, the most totally decent human being to ever be President of the United States.

He made the tough and the right call, to make a quick end to the war, saving a million American servicemen's lives, my father's among them, and several million Japanese civilians.

"... propose an alternative course of action.."
Jeff Guinn, your post is dumb as shit, and ordinarily would merit simply being dismissed as such, but in this case I find it worth addressing.

The onus here is not on me or any other opponent of the Iraq war, it is on you and the other defenders of the Iraq policy, who must somehow argue that deposing a marginalized, isolated tinpot dicatator – no worse than many we allow to walk free – with no active WMD programs and no history of coordingating with Al Qaeda was worth:

-One TRILLION dollars and counting
-5,000 U.S. soldier's lives
-30,000 U.S. soldiers wounded (and, not that anyone gives a shit, but at least 100k Iraqis lost their lives in the conflct and subsequent civil war)
-the incredible opportunity costs, which are too many to enumerate

In return for our trillion dollars and 5,000 dead soldiers and 30,000 wounded soldiers we got:

-A Shiite government that is now closely allied with mullahs in Iran, instead of a Sunni government that constrained them
-Our soldiers, and not Saddam, are the face of Abh Ghraib
-Our ability to make the case for war against real threats is greatly weakened after we went to war on a cobweb of credulity and lies
-A more powerful and influential Iran in the region (forgive the redundancy, this a blog comment people tend to miss stuff unless whacked with it)
&c, &c, &c

To anyone sane at the time – and I understand why many were not – the Iraq war was misguided from the get-go. Saddam was not the threat he was made out to be (anyone go back and look at Powell's disgraceful presentation to the U.N., and see how uncomfortable he was making that case, based on the completely credulous repetition of the words of an unreliable witness). To defend it in historical context is nuts, and it is this sort of thinking that will enable our next hubristic adventure into a situation we undertand poorly and which will likely hurt us and our allies (e.g., part of why a nuclear Iran is such a quandry now is that they no longer have to be concerned with a threat from Iraq).

As others have alluded to in this thread, there may be cases where we need to use our military in a preemptive fashion in larger and more obvious numbers than the drones currently favored by the Obama administration. The proverbial boots on the ground. If you argue Iraq wasn't a mistake you make that harder. Becuase it was so clearly so.

hindsighty:

Instead of dismissing Jeff, you should read him for comprehension.

who must somehow argue that deposing a marginalized, isolated tinpot dicatator

Who had the largest military in the vincinity. With the ability and weaponry to hit any target in the vicinity.

Who was "isolated" because the US military had besieged the country - and the Russians and French were busily breaking the blockade and selling the Iraqi's anything they wanted.

no worse than many we allow to walk free

Who have ballistic missiles, who's invaded other countries?

with no active WMD programs

Your wingnuttery aside, the programs were quite active, as demonstrated by the binary sarin shell.

See, this is why you should read Jeff's post and learn from it.

You admit that there were, actually, "inactive" WMD's programs. But you also want to claim there were "No WMD", with a guy who used them in the past, and with IAEA inspections that found hundreds of sites demonstrating further work - and.. and.. and..

The point is you've made your mind up, and the facts that contradict you are completely incapable of penetrating your bogon shield.

Even as you admit your entire point is compromised, you insult other people who understand much more about the situation.

and no history of coordingating with Al Qaeda was worth:

Coordinating? No proven history, perhaps not. But there was intelligence that there had been discussions and negotations. That said, Al Queda is one terrorist group, and Saddam was quite the supporter of terrorists.

But, see, "hindsighty", all of that doesn't change what Jeff said.

In 2003, we had a military who had to dedicate 1/2 of their logistic effort to the siege of Iraq.

We - well, Jeff and Crid and I might can, you wouldn't be able to, based on your performance - discuss how best to handle such things, and if we should have been in that situation - but the fact remains we were.

And we also have to support military in the Pacific - Korea? Japan? Okinawa?, Europe? And there's that pesky North and South America area...

But given the realities of the situation in 2003, invading Iraq (Who was in massive violation of the cease-fire agreement (Which authorized use of force to gain compliance), who was shooting at US service people daily and had been for years (which might have rather meant that the US Military might have considered Iraq to be a "credible threat"), AND that the siege of Iraq was a dangerous place to be (Seriously. The accident/casualty rate post invasion and major organized fighting was lower than 1991-2002..)

Now, granted, it's easy to just say "BOOOSH BAD" and wish that situations weren't complicated - that the 2003 war was driven by the situations and people as an outgrowth of the 1991 situation, which was an outgrowth of Carters feckless stupidity in 1979, which was a result of the British and French greed in the 50s, which was a result of....

But people who've paid attention might just think you don't know what you're talking about.

"They've been going on since the beginning of time for man"

And comments like the above are why.

"'cause the accidental invention of nuclear fission would have been so much better?"

"You do realize that in terms of numbers of death, that Hiroshima barely makes the top 5 of the war, right?"

It's all in the intent. The intent was to create a weapon of such shock and awe as to incapacitate a country and prevent any sort of retaliation in order to win the war. The only reason I even question the decision is because of the nukes. As the foremost military power, there were no other weapons being developed? No other choices?

"The Germans and the Japanese both were attempting to develop an atomic weapon during WWII."

So why not carpet-bomb them instead? You were in the position to drop a nuke, why not drop enough bombs to level the place? Why go nuclear? And I have to question the Japanese intent. Would they have been racing to build it if not for the American attempt? Again, you don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

"Sorry, Crid, I think this one is all yours from now on."

Ahh Crid, what would I do without him? Sucks and blows all at the same time. Entertaining to say the least.

"It's hard to care how teen Canadians feel about our execution of our global responsibilities (including, as they do, defense of all Canadian shoreline, the longest on the planet)."

You assume too much. My age is not your business but suffice it to say I can remember the cold war, which your generation started, with attitudes like above, thank you very much. You also assume Joe Canadian is grateful for your assistance. We aren't. It obligates us in terms of the wars you start. The cuts to our military were made by our parents generation, and it's only now that our generation is screaming for better defense budgets that the Harper administration is actually doing something about it. In ten years, we'll be on par with you. Then what the hell are you going to spend your days bitching about?

"Cousin naifs are blind to the miracles that America's leadership of global economic integration has brought to so much of the globe. The wealth in their own lives is often invisible, too."

We actually don't need or want your leadership, thanks.

"He made the tough and the right call, to make a quick end to the war, saving a million American servicemen's lives, my father's among them, and several million Japanese civilians"

Not saying anything about the decision. The war was a desperate time calling for desperate measures. What I am saying is there had to be a better way. Carpet bombing, napalm, what have you. Anything but nuclear.

Damn kids.

As I was saying.

"No. It was engineered. That was the hard part. Not the "invention". The engineering.
It was engineered to be a weapon, and it was invented to stop the war decisively."

This is my whole point. Intent is everything. Being the foremost military power in the world, I'm sure other weapons and options were in the works. Why did it have to be this one? If it did have to be this one, why didn't the US disarm after the war when they reasonably could have while Germany and Japan & Co were in chaos? Now Pandora's box has been opened and disarming would be the height of lunacy.

"Leaflets were dropped for days on Nagasaki and Hiroshima before the atomic bombs were dropped."

Days? Days!?!? How quick do you possibly think a city can evacuate? Even if the leaflets weren't ignored as propaganda?

"And thus vulnerable to them."

Why do you assume that because a country has a military, you are vulnerable to them? Italy has a military, Egypt has a military, hell, Switzerland has a military. Would they ever be loony enough to fire at the US? Somehow I don't think so. The only countries currently unfriendly to the US are the ones that think they have a reason to be.

Why do so many countries think they have a reason to be?

Unix-Jedi, you're making up shit. I wasn't saying Boosh Bad, or anything similar; I'm not some lefty who sympathized with the goals of ANSWER or the other socialist groups who opposed the war for their own ends.

I know what I'm talking about, and I am correct.

In retrospect, it is impossible to argue that what we "achieved" in Iraq was worth the cost. This is inarguable: Iraq was a ROI-negative venture.

WE SPENT A TRILLION DOLLARS AND 5000 OF OUR YOUNG PEOPLE GAVE THEIR LIVES TO MAKE IRAN'S BIGGEST ENEMY INTO AN ALLY.

As powerful as we are in the U.S., our financial and military resource are limited. Hence, what we do must be subjected to cost-benefit analysis.

Dead-end Iraq war supporters such as yourself reiterate the same tired stuff: Saddam invaded other countries in the past (though 1991 pretty much showed him that wasn't the thing to do any more), in the past pursued WMD, took the occasional potshot at planes enforcing the no-fly zone, etc.

All of what we knew then of Saddam, and what has been shown to be correct today, is that he was a well-contained, modest regional menace, more deadly to people living within Iraq's borders than elsewhere. He was kept contained by our forces at a relatively small cost. There was some potential upside to removing him from the equation, but not a lot, as his threat to the region was marginalized by our forces at relatively small cost. Moreover, there was a huge downside risk in removing him, that we would likely be caught in a civil war there, as the various tribal and religious factions contained by his regime fought for control in the ensuing power vacuum, and that removing him would strengthen Iran and its allies in the region. These considerations are exactly why President Bush wisely decided not to topple Saddam in 1991.

Small upside combined with a large probability of a massive downside = bad investment. While there might have been some small doubt that is the sort of investment we were buying back in 2003, it is idiocy to argue otherwise now.

> My age is not your business but

Kiss a girl! Not your sister! Not your Mom!

> You also assume Joe Canadian is grateful
> for your assistance.

Quite the reverse! Ingratitude is the teenaged quintessence of the sulking Canadian lifestyle— You guys login down here and comment as if you were part of the American miracle, when some might say you're more of a burden to it.

> We aren't.

And yet, like teenagers with your feet on the coffee table watching video games, you decline to go out and get a job, i.e., take responsibility for your own security. THAT'S how ingratitude works, OK? When the the little feller decides he can do a better job of wiping his own backside, the rest of us can start giving attention to better projects.

> We actually don't need or want your
> leadership, thanks.

[1.] Kitten, nobody's asking: The United States is going to lead.

[2.] Despite this posture of butt-aching independence, you login every day for a dose of that leadership. (It's bracing, right? Like a brisk arctic breeze in a touk with a beer on Juno™ night!) You're nothing without us.

> Why do you assume that because a country has
> a military, you are vulnerable to them?

Why? Because you haven't been reading. I never said anything about 'having a military'... The whole theme of my comments is that folks here shouldn't imagine these enemies as neatly established bureaucracies in handily-nuke-able office buildings. 9/11 wasn't a military attack; SARS in Toronto (ahem) wasn't a military attack.

The thing that makes those places (sexually repressive oil potentates, Asian flu hatcheries) dangerous to us isn't their connectedness when something bad happens, it's their disconnectedness the rest of the time... That's what allows vermin to fester and mutate.

You'll understand when you're older, but being Canadian means you'll always have to work a little harder to see things as they really are. Meantime, if you're serious about taking care of your own borders, you can go ahead and establish a perimeter any time you want. You'll need an army worth fighting, a navy worth sinking and a lot more investment (in yourselves) than you've found to be palatable in my lifetime.

Than you've found to be PROFITABLE in my lifetime would have been better.

Word choices, right?

Also, I should have LICKED "the entire enchilada" at March 22, 2013 11:14 PM.

These thing always come to mind minutes later.

things.

So why not carpet-bomb them instead?

We did. I'm beginning to think you're not serious about this, nor even that stupid.

Just in case, google "Bombing of Dresden".

But that "carpet bombing" took a lot of effort. Was dangerous. Lots of people dead on both sides.

Lots better to have lots dead on one side - preferably the other.

You were in the position to drop a nuke, why not drop enough bombs to level the place? Why go nuclear?

OK, you're just trolling, right?

If you're serious - and I don't think you are - then you're really proving you can't be taken seriously.

And I have to question the Japanese intent. Would they have been racing to build it if not for the American attempt?

Yes. You aren't really this clueless, are you? And if you are, you're not actually trying to tell us what we ought to do and support based on the whimsical bubbles in your head that don't understand well-documented history, much less complicated geopolitical current realities?

Again, you don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

Intellectually, you don't seem to understand or follow this advice.

"They've been going on since the beginning of time for man"

"And comments like the above are why."

Canadian, you are more than dumb. How the hell should I know. Did you not read the words? I have no idea why man has been fighting since the beginning of their time here on earth. Probably genetic, but I do not know. Do you? It sure isn't because the USA has nukes. You do know that the US wasn't around at the time man became don't you?

"So why not carpet-bomb them instead? You were in the position to drop a nuke, why not drop enough bombs to level the place? Why go nuclear? And I have to question the Japanese intent. Would they have been racing to build it if not for the American attempt? Again, you don't bring a knife to a gun fight."

Oh shit. How silly of me. The wtf (he/she - don't know but clearly a pussy) is a military/war expert tactician. Who knew?

She can't be reading, or doesn't understand the words. Maybe she is a Islamic/Canadian. The reason for the nuke was to show that we could (see, could) level the place and kill them all. Lookihere dumbshit, it worked.

Roll that around in your mouth, savor the bitter taste, and then swallow it. Because there is nothing you can say to dispute it, and from a strategic perspective, this is disastrous for us.

From the guy who doesn't know the facts on the ground, or the overall political issues, somehow, that's hardly cutting.

ROI? You want to argue ROI? And think you'll win?

If you want to pick a single metric, that would be the single worst one you could pick.

But you do manage to pick most of the other bad ones, to be sure.

IRAN'S BIGGEST ENEMY INTO AN ALLY.

No. But if you can't understand the simple fact that 1) the invasion wasn't about "WMD", and even if it was, or wasn't, 2) Saddam had known stockpiles of (admitted) WMD prior to the war, and 3) those programs were quite active during the siege, and 4) the invasion flushed out of Libya a quite advanced and until then unknown nuclear enrichment and bomb program ....

You won't understand that 2 year or 5 years will turn Iran and Iraq into "allies".

To explain that to you would require knowledge and history you don't understand, and demonstrably are unable to acquire.

Saddam invaded other countries in the past (though 1991 pretty much showed him that wasn't the thing to do any more), in the past pursued WMD, took the occasional potshot at planes enforcing the no-fly zone, etc.

He shot daily at forces enforcing the siege.

That's not "occasional". (You might go google "Clinton airstrikes Iraq" and learn a few things. But I don't think you will, or can.)

All of what we knew then of Saddam, and what has been shown to be correct today, is that he was a well-contained, modest regional menace,

Due to a massive effort by the US military, that ate up one half of it's logistics ability.

He was kept contained by our forces at a relatively small cost.

And here's where you've started to indicate you have some idea how wrong you are - but aren't able to admit it.

"Small cost", wasn't just the money - which wasn't "small" by anything I'd use for scale.

Dealing with the Iraqi siege was one of the single biggest projects the Pentagon had to deal with, as well as intelligence agencies. Plus the international repercussions due to the "allies" of ours working against us.

It wasn't a "Small cost". It ate up huge amounts of money and manpower from dozens of agencies.

Now, it doesn't.

Remember that ROI you were using?

In order to make that claim, you've got to understand what the investment is, what metrics you're using, and what your costs are.

You don't. So your sneering condescension is a reflection and celebration of your ignorance.

What we knew in 2003 supported the steps taken (broadly), and what we know now hasn't changed that.

Unless of course you want to go into historical revisionism, ignore the size of the Iraqi military, the effort required to contain it, the genocidal efforts underway even despite the siege, the history of the region and people in it...... Once you do that, well, it's easy to claim it was idiotic.

But it might be showing idiocy in someone other than your opponents.

Jebus, the Jedi is much faster than me.

CLARIFICATION

When I say nuke them, I mean we use anything and everything available to end the interaction. With haste and malice. No hesitation.

Some do not know, or care to know, that in Vietnam young men died waiting for permission to return fire. Those were often the ROE. It did this thing to me and no therapy or drugs has ever fixed it. If we go, we go BIG. Otherwise we don't go - that is my ROE. Politicians and the likes of wtf should not have any say in war.

I think you are right Jedi - wtf is a troll.

"Kiss a girl! Not your sister! Not your Mom!"

What are you drunk? What the hell does that mean? Proves you don't bother to read the comments, you're in such a rush to say something snotty. I've already said I'm a girl. Many. Times. At least if you're going to insult me, have the courtesy to do so in a manner that makes sense.

"You guys login down here and comment as if you were part of the American miracle"

There you go generalizing again. One Canadian is as good as another to you. And next you'll say we all look the same to you. Classic ignorance.

Actually, you guys are the ones that started the whole Canadian-American thing. Again. All I said was nuking anybody that fucks with you is a good way to start the third world war. You guys took it from there. You wouldn't stand for America-bashing, why should I calmly accept your stance on Canadians?

Because we prefer diplomacy and economic sanctions where possible, because we prefer passivity where possible, doesn't mean Canadians are "pussies". It means we recognize the need to let cooler heads prevail.

I find it very telling though that you can't accept an opinion that doesn't reflect yours like a mirror without attacking it. Something like what you do on the world stage. As I've said, 90% of our channels are American. It's not like we don't have a clue about the States. Quick, without Googling, name 5 Canadian cities on the border with you. Can you even name the Provinces? You insult what you don't care to know about. Yet another example of classic ignorance.

Honestly, I don't know why you find it necessary to constantly bring it around to being Canadian. You've even brought it up in relation to gay marriage. Is that the best you can come up with?

You're in Cyber-space. There are no borders. Get used to it.

"We did. I'm beginning to think you're not serious about this, nor even that stupid."

Actually, you're right.

In relation to the carpet bombing aspect, that was the best example I could think of off the top of my head. I'm not arrogant enough to think I could come up with a better solution. However, it had to be out there. There had to be a better way. And why keep an arsenal when it had already served it's purpose, especially when the government knew the technology would eventually be used against them.

In relation to the Japanese intent aspect, I find myself wondering if the Nazi's were even honest with their allies. Perhaps they told the Japanese it was you who started the research first? I didn't say they WOULDN'T have started the research first, merely questioning whether they would have. It isn't as if the American government is completely honest with it's citizens or allies at all times, why would Germany or Japan be any different? Not defending them here, they started it, but history has a tendency to become warped, on both sides.

In relation to the topic as a whole, no I'm not serious because you guys aren't actually being all that serious yourselves. If you were, you wouldn't bring it all down to American-Canadian. If you were serious, you wouldn't be advocating nuclear strikes against any country that "fucks with you" regardless of the cost.

"Probably genetic, but I do not know. Do you?"

Actually, yes. It all comes down to ego. Most people would say that most conflict originates from greed, but that is simplistic when you consider that the driving force behind greed is ego. Pride, jealousy, revenge, all driven by ego.

"Maybe she is a Islamic/Canadian."

Actually, French Canadian, and proud of it tapette. My cousin, however, married an Afghani man and has a baby boy with him. He is being raised Canadian, loves poutine and the RCMP musical ride, and speaks English, French, and Arabic. Proof positive that all Muslims are not out to destroy democracy. Some of them, maybe, not all. That's why generalization is dangerous.

> There are no borders. Get used to it.

That's my point throughout this discussion: And yes, yyou are that confused.

Nonetheless, some nations are better at answering their responsibilities than others are, so their opinions count for more than those of lesser countries.

[Hindsighty:] Jeff Guinn, your post is dumb as shit, and ordinarily would merit simply being dismissed as such, but in this case I find it worth addressing.

The onus here is not on me or any other opponent of the Iraq war, it is on you and the other defenders of the Iraq policy, who must somehow argue that deposing a marginalized, isolated tinpot dicatator – no worse than many we allow to walk free – with no active WMD programs and no history of coordingating with Al Qaeda was worth:

Oh yes, the onus is very much on you. The moment you start citing the costs of deposing Saddam, you are obligated to at least make a stab at the costs of not doing so.

What you are doing, and what everyone on the anti-war left does, so far as I can tell, is insist upon their holiness by comparing the costs of what happened with [ ].

Unfortunately, in the real world, nothing is never an option. Moreover, you presume that the results of our actions between 1991 and 2003 would continue indefinitely, despite manifest evidence to the contrary, due to [ ].

WMD was only one of many problems, and, in my opinion, maybe not even in the top ten. Unfortunately, the rest of them require having some in depth knowledge of the state of play, the interests of each of our allies (per Unix-Jedi, perhaps that word requires scare quotes), the goals of our enemies, and the knock-on effects of any course of action on the rest of the countries in the region. You have given no sign whatsoever of even so much as glanced in that direction, never mind giving it serious thought.

NB: that doesn't mean doing so will lead you to agreeing with me, only that it is very likely that you will see the decision was a far closer thing than you portray, which wallows in trite Manichaeanism.

Further, everyone (including Saddam) believed he had chemical weapons, and everyone knew he wanted nuclear weapons. As a political matter, when selling a strategic decision, picking the most easily grasped element of that decision is essential.

The weakest part of your argument, and perhaps here again scare quotes might be a good idea, is the presumption that Saddam was not a threat. At the time we invaded, Saddam had limited capacity, but that doesn't mean he didn't represent a threat.

Which might become apparent to you if you fill in [ ]. What would we have gotten had we not spent a trillion dollars, 5000 lives, et al?

WE SPENT A TRILLION DOLLARS AND 5000 OF OUR YOUNG PEOPLE GAVE THEIR LIVES TO MAKE IRAN'S BIGGEST ENEMY INTO AN ALLY.

Let's take that as read. Now think for a moment, if you can. What might have been the consequences had the opposite happened?

But I repeat myself. Fill in the brackets, then consider the possible consequences. Until you do that, you are trying to sell a one sided coin.

Oh, by the way, I'll bet you wouldn't say "your post is dumb as shit" to my face. So why here? Are you an internet tough guy?

—

[wtf:] So why not carpet-bomb them instead?

Ummm … you do realize that had been done, don't you? Ever hear of Dresden? Tokyo?

And that is before you get to the first resort of the irrevocably convinced: magical thinking.

That is the carpet bombing would have happened magically, and it would have magically had the effect you, absent any particular reason presume.

The primary effect of the atomic bombs was psychological — something had to utterly and quickly break the Japanese will to resist.

Say what you will, the atomic bombs had that effect.

(Also, you engage in even more magical thinking by saying What I am saying is there had to be a better way. Carpet bombing, napalm, what have you. Anything but nuclear. Why would those things have been better?)

> why should I calmly accept your stance on Canadians?

Because we're not asking, and because you're not doing anything to earn our admiration.

Also, we don't care if you're calm. Your "stance" is timid, cheap, cowardly, (incompetently) excusatory and presumptuous, and those are the reasons we can and do dismiss your prescriptions.

You can tell Dad as much as you want about how he should be running his muffler shop. But as long as you're living over his garage and eating his Post Toasties, it will be difficult to regard your spittled harangues as morally informed.

OK, see you guys later tonight.

Unix,

1) your post is generally horseshit. Links or it didn't happen. And by links I mean to reputable sources.

2) you cannot possibly think that Baghdad and Tehran aren't close or you literally know nothing about the ME

3) I may be back to discipline you later. But it's hard to argue with someone so unhinged from reality

[wtf:] Because we prefer diplomacy and economic sanctions where possible, because we prefer passivity where possible, doesn't mean Canadians are "pussies".

What it does make you (and most of Europe) are free riders.

"your post is generally horseshit. Links or it didn't happen. And by links I mean to reputable sources."

Last resort of a fool. Your, kind sir, are an idiot.

"doesn't mean Canadians are "pussies"."

You, wtf, are the pussy. I have fought alongside Canadians and know they are not pussies. You are also a troll.

"That's my point throughout this discussion"

"The whole theme of my comments is that folks here shouldn't imagine these enemies as neatly established bureaucracies in handily-nuke-able office buildings."

Funny, I thought it was how superior Americans are to the rest of the world.

"Oh, by the way, I'll bet you wouldn't say "your post is dumb as shit" to my face. So why here? Are you an internet tough guy?"

I addressed this last week. He does it to everybody. Making up for lack of girth hon, he ain't singling you out.

"Ummm … you do realize that had been done, don't you? Ever hear of Dresden? Tokyo?"

Read the above post. Again, first thing of the top of my head. Not arrogant enough to believe that I could come up with a better solution. But there had to be one. I wouldn't have even went there if not for Crid and Co.

"Say what you will, the atomic bombs had that effect."

I did say that.

"You can tell Dad as much as you want about how he should be running his muffler shop. But as long as you're living over his garage and eating his Post Toasties, it will be difficult to regard your spittled harangues as morally informed."

And you would know. If you can give it, you can take it. We've already had this discussion. If you weren't such a morally superior, cowardly, prejudiced, sub-moronic beta male intent on proving how small is his dick isn't, I'd leave you alone.

"Because we're not asking, and because you're not doing anything to earn our admiration"

"Kitten, nobody's asking: The United States is going to lead."

Nope, no reason to hate Americans there......and you wonder why Mohammed Mohammed wants to shove a scud up your ass.

"What it does make you (and most of Europe) are free riders."

Why, because we don't want to participate in a war we didn't start? Because we prefer to let other countries internal conflicts remain internal if we can?

Not everyone wants or needs American assistance. If a country is victimizing it's women, if a country is blowing apart due to civil war, if that country is still stuck in the dark ages prosecuting for witchcraft, that isn't always a problem the rest of the world needs to fix.

North America only gained it's status as world leaders after hundreds of years of internal struggle and strife. They were growing pains. Other countries need to go through them too. It isn't always our problem, isn't always something to go to war over.

> thought it was how superior Americans are to
> the rest of the world.

Maslow: "I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail."

Cridmo: When you're steeped in shame, all you can feel towards others is resentment.

> Not everyone wants or needs American
> assistance

Again, Chilly Pilgrim, I'm not sure you recognize the irony of offering this perspective from a position of needful reliance.

"North America" isn't the world leader. The United States of America is the world leader. We'll give you a vote when you shoulder some of the burdens, beginning with the whole of your own defense.

Dave B, my what are an idiot?

Unix made a number of broad claims of fact, most dubious of which is that containing Iraq somehow took half of our entire military logistics ability. The proof that there were active WMD programs would be good, too. Since those are important facts, I assume that they are readily available from credible government or news agencies. I'd like links, or I'll continue to think he's full of shit.

My what are an idiot! I loves the blog "comments"!

"Again, Chilly Pilgrim, I'm not sure you recognize the irony of offering this perspective from a position of needful reliance."

You say this while waiting for us to clean up your mess.

""North America" isn't the world leader. The United States of America is the world leader. We'll give you a vote when you shoulder some of the burdens, beginning with the whole of your own defense."

Ask the rest of the world. They would disagree. It isn't us Mohammed Mohammed is after, at least it wasn't till we had to provide troops to a war you started. As for our own defence, we're workin on it. It would be easier if we didn't constantly have to wipe up after you, and fight you over Artic Sovereignty, and guard ourselves against enemies you made for us.

Give it up Crid, no matter how much you argue, you'll still be the one minute man with penis envy.

> Ask the rest of the world. They would disagree.

When the shit hits the fan, "North America" doesn't get the call, the United Nations doesn't get the call. When people need help, they call Washington.

> and guard ourselves against enemies
> you made for us.

You guard yourselves? How?

I think you're being a titch defensive.

Unix made a number of broad claims of fact, most dubious of which is that containing Iraq somehow took half of our entire military logistics ability.

If that's "dubious" to you, then you're utterly and totally clueless as to anything you're blathering about.

It's one of those things that shouldn't require linking, like "The Bears play football in Chicago", to anybody who knows what football is.

It's quite simply not even questionable, much less "dubious".

But your sneering dismissal of basic facts demonstrates quite clearly who's actually got a understanding of the situation.

2) you cannot possibly think that Baghdad and Tehran aren't close or you literally know nothing about the ME

They're not. Period. Haven't been since before there were maps. Any change in that will be very short lived and for very limited duration.

And literally you're a egotistical fool to argue that (especially after just whining over the "low cost" support to besiege Iraq), that somehow you think that your 5 minute analysis of the situation overcomes thousands of years with the people involved.

Yeah. You got a good handle on the situation, son.

wtf:

In relation to the carpet bombing aspect, that was the best example I could think of off the top of my head.

So you came up with an example, not knowing anything about the situation.

But that didn't stop you.

Notice, immediately, 3? of us? Said "are you kidding?"

So now you claim ignorance, but yet, continue to lecture us.

I'm not arrogant enough to think I could come up with a better solution.

You are that arrogant, because it's what you've been doing and what you immediately did!

However, it had to be out there. There had to be a better way.

Plan A was bombing, tanks, incendiary bombs, and flamethrowers.

You prefer that?

And why keep an arsenal when it had already served it's purpose,

Because it hadn't served it's purpose.

Just because you put your gun down doesn't mean the other guy will, especially if he doesn't and you do....

especially when the government knew the technology would eventually be used against them.

Which it hasn't. And the "technology" was already out there, once people knew it was possible, it made it much simpler.

Again, concepts you don't get, and yet you'll lecture us?

Surely, you're just trolling, because otherwise, you're just being silly.

Not everyone wants or needs American assistance

Get back to us on that when you've got a Air Force and Navy to defend your country, and aren't using the US Navy (with a "Official Representative" of the Royal Canadian whatever onboard) in place.

The coastal patrols are US Navy planes, with US Navy crews, with the exception of the co-pilot, who's always Canadian.

That way we're not being Empirical, or something. And they're helping!

Jeff:

What you are doing, and what everyone on the anti-war left does, so far as I can tell, is insist upon their holiness by comparing the costs of what happened with [ ].

The word you're looking for is "magic".

If we hadn't invaded Iraq, then magically nothing else would have happened.

I'd say "Opportunity costs" but then hindsighty will show up and start screaming about needing links to college sophomore Economics or I'm fulla shit.

> If we hadn't invaded Iraq, then magically nothing else
> would have happened.

I used to have a job where we worked with a lot of very young "producers"... But the projects were mostly sausage television squeezed from Hollywood's promotional scraps. Many of these inexpensive functionaries had no foresight or discipline in their abstractions. A friend who was editing for one of them grew frustrated on being asked — through hours of work in each effort — to build segments again and again with pointless but complicated changes, wasting the goodwill of his boss, who didn't like overtime. The woman's defense: "But I can't know what it will look like until I see it!" His response: "Then honey, you're a viewer... We already have thousands and thousands of those. They don't know what they like until they see it, either. But as the leader of this effort, you're expected to know."

Five years ago, when commenters here were still complaining about these wars as a single, well-resisted 'mistake!', I'd ask them to understand that it was time to move forward in their anticipation of events. They couldn't do it.

Like the little lady producers, they'd not made a deep enough study of any particular instance to reflect on how it might have played out with thoughtful adjustments.

They have to see it in front of them, or they just don't understand.

Crid, who was it that said, "Experience is a hard teacher, but a fool will learn from no other?"

Yea, that one. Arm chair quarterbacking, is a common pastime of the American and Canadian left, and most of them are so far out of the loop, that they haven't even read the articles, that refer to the books they need to read to understand the Pacific theater in World War II, let alone 1991-2012 in the middle east.

Instead, they would prefer to parrot some 22 year old journalism major, writing for "the Nation" after he interview some other idiot 24 year old journalist writing for the AP.

This is the intellectual equivalent of talking to someone who met Bobby Fischer once, and deciding that makes you a personal authority on Chess.

Dammit Crid.

Now I feel old.

Isab:

Hey, I saw someone play chess once, which is why I can tell you that anybody who moves the knight first is a fool!

[wtf:] Not everyone wants or needs American assistance. If a country is victimizing it's women, if a country is blowing apart due to civil war, if that country is still stuck in the dark ages prosecuting for witchcraft, that isn't always a problem the rest of the world needs to fix.

But sometimes it is. Why don't you spend a few minutes considering why the US thinks this particular region is a problem that needs fixing. In other words, think about potential downside risks. Hint: malthusian hell

[hindsighty:] Unix made a number of broad claims of fact, most dubious of which is that containing Iraq somehow took half of our entire military logistics ability. The proof that there were active WMD programs would be good, too.

The fun thing about the internet, in case you are new to it, is that if you find a claim dubious, you can — and this is a real shocker, right? — find out for yourself.

Unix's claims are very consistent with my own experience. I don't know precisely what portion of our entire logistics capability Northern Watch and Deny Flight took, but it was far from trivial, and figures as one of many reasons why the status quo ante had reached a dead end.

You should also have noted, from investigating the motivations of our enemies, that the US presence in Saudi Arabia, which was necessary to support Deny Flight, was Osama bin Laden's casus belli.

[crid:] When the shit hits the fan, "North America" doesn't get the call, the United Nations doesn't get the call. When people need help, they call Washington.

Other than the Balkans, Libya, Mali, Syria, Taiwan, the 2007 Tsunami ad infinitum, whatever gave you that idea?

To be fair, the Canadians helped get a half dozen State Dept employees out of Iran.

Best Canadian things since the Hostage Crisis:

[1.] Lala!

(She looked me in the eye and spoke to me once. I was too bashful to respond verbally... I was only fifty years old.)

[2.] This presentation, which everyone reading this should watch. Canadians in particular should pay attention to Barnett's last question, echoing Jeff, above: Is Canada too European to take part in the project?

HAI,

Jeff, Unix and other dumbshits. First, I've seen citation none contradicting any of my assertions. Until I do, la-la-la, eat a dick. Or five. Making self-assured morons look like fools is such a pleasure, but time is limited, so I can't mock you all equally here. I'm sorry. Let's get started :)

"Crid"
"My what are an idiot! I loves the blog "comments"!"

There's never a bad time to mock someone's stupidity on the internets. Especially if that persons't trying to claim one is dumb. lolololol dumbasss Dave B

"The moment you start citing the costs of deposing Saddam, you are obligated to at least make a stab at the costs of not doing so."

What, a billion per year or so, was what we were paying, right? That's what the no-fly zone cost us. So. a thousand years of the status quo. Maybe twice that in hidden costs. So 500 years.

Details, details:
Unix sez "In 2003, we had a military who had to dedicate 1/2 of their logistic effort to the siege of Iraq.

Asked for support for this assertion, provided nothing :)

"The fun thing about the internet, in case you are new to it, is that if you find a claim dubious, you can — and this is a real shocker, right? — find out for yourself."

Right, and I can't find shit from anyone credible to support what he wrote. Please enlighten me!

"US presence in Saudi Arabia, which was necessary to support Deny Flight, was Osama bin Laden's casus belli."

Who cares? When it comes to making war the grievances of lunatics merit not consideration.

Look, just write this:

Iraq was a bad idea and I was wrong. I learned the hard way and I'll do better next time.

> Iraq was a bad idea and I was wrong. I learned
> the hard way and I'll do better next time.

See above: This is going to happen again and again. We had better get good on the follow-through.

[hindsighty:] First, I've seen citation none contradicting any of my assertions.

So far, your assertions amount to a recitation of facts of various worth. I am happy to take them as read.

However, that is no help to you unless you are willing to propose a course of action you would have pursued instead, and go some way to examine its possible knock-on effects.

Otherwise, what you are doing is comparing the costs of going to war against a nullity. It is a common defect of the anti-war left, but no more worthwhile because you happen to have company.

If you had even a glancing appreciation of the state of affairs prior to the invasion, you would have at least considered the possibility (certainty in my opinion) that the no-fly zones and sanctions regime, ongoing for a decade, had reached a dead end. In particular, examine the actions of the French, Chinese, and Russians. Also, examine the Oil For Food Program.

Now, if I'm right and the no-fly zones and sanctions had reached their sell-by date, then the status quo was not an option. Therefore, you have to consider an alternative course of action.

Instead, you have [ ].

BTW, it is a truism, which you have redundantly proven, that the first sign of a bankrupt argument is ad hominem attack.

"There's never a bad time to mock someone's stupidity on the internets. Especially if that persons't trying to claim one is dumb. lolololol dumbasss Dave B"

I don't even know what he is trying to say. Should I be offended? If so, I'll try will hard to be if it will make him feel better.

Oh, and hindsighty, I didn't call you dumb, or stupid. I called you an idiot. That was because you said something very idiotic.

Goddammit all to hell Crid. Barnett's presentation was an hour and a half. Now it is way past this old man's bedtime. Shit. It's 2:28 am now and it takes me a least half an hour to get to bed. Goddammit all to hell Crid.

Besides, he said we would suffer from a baby boomer president and said Obama, not a baby boomer, would not bring along that baggage. How fucked up is that. We didn't get Hillary or Rudy, we got Obama. He implied that would be better. Now we are on Obama's second four years, things suck globally, and locally. What's he say now?

He's pissed. Here's his website. Here's his Twitter.

Like everyone else who fawned over Obama's intellect and brilliant youthful perspective, he's come to regret his enthusiasm.

But yeah, Barnett's 2007 speeches are fun for their naivete about Obama. Almost everyone's 2007 enthusiasm is good for a sincere, if bitter, laugh.

"Surely, you're just trolling, because otherwise, you're just being silly."

As you are. If you want to be taken seriously and not be insulted, you're doing it wrong. What goes around comes around. As long as you're typing shit that makes no sense, I might as well join in.

Hey Crid, I found that self portrait you did the other day!

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150344697410954&set=a.127564720953.105058.11784025953&type=1&theater

If you want to be taken seriously and not be insulted, you're doing it wrong. What goes around comes around.

wtf:

Every time I've seen you involved in a discussion, it ends up with you admitting that well, actually, you have no idea what you're talking about.

That, however, doesn't damp your enthusiasm or make you self-introspect that gee, maybe, you shouldn't be so certain you're right.

So you have all these opinions on the Manhattan Project (even though you don't know what the other countries were doing, or why it succeeded, or how close/what progress other groups were making)... Oh, and you don't know the history of the war, major efforts that still today have stigma attached. Or, you know...

Basically, in this thread, you repeatedly said something completely idiotic and unlearned, and then failed to note that, well, that undermined everything you said.

If you have no fricken clue about Dresden, or Tokyo, but can snarkily toss off a one-liner how the A-bomb wasn't needed, and then admit that you didn't have any clue, but not think "maybe I should rethink this.." you're hopefully trolling.

Because the alternative is frightening. Well, it would be, if I weren't so used to the product of the public school systems. Here, and in Canada, mind you. Indistinguishable from my perspective.

In short: Almost everything you've said is wrong, demonstrably wrong, and when it was demonstrated, you didn't change your mind or even admit that, yeah, maybe it's not a good idea to wish the world a certain way.

As long as you're typing shit that makes no sense,

Such as not only did the Japanese not surrender after the first atomic bomb, they replied insultingly to Truman's missive warning them that more were coming?

So, from that, my "shit makes no sense" when I understand that the Japanese military was still, after losing 80% of their Navy, almost 100% of their trained pilots, some 40% of their effective land forces (they still had most of their manpower in China raping away), not to mention what we were doing with the fishing boats that Japan required to survive, where the caloric intake of the average citizen was below "starvation" levels, and .....

Etc. I understand that, and you don't, but you can make some outrageous comment about how horrible the atomic-bomb was, and completely not understand that it quite literally saved the Japanese people. (You and the Japanese Military seem to have some common areas in mindset and critical thinking.)

Seriously. You know that Japan didn't surrender after Hiroshima got pounded. So we dropped another on Nagasaki. Through an incredible amount of screwups, it got dropped on a backup city, and not in the right place, so it did less damage.

You know that despite the import of that weapon, Japan didn't surrender until it was clear that we had many more coming. Again, I'm sure you're unaware of this, but the Military shot down all surrender talk after Hiroshima, by estimating that a U-235 bomb would have been so expensive, that there was no way we could have had a second weapon. (They were wrong, BTW. But not due to bad math, they didn't know some of the engineering breakthroughs that had occurred.)

But, Nagasaki being a Pu-239, well, that finally broke through a lot of their mindset, cause if we had Pu-239 in production, yeah, we might have a lot of that.

But it wasn't even unanimous then, and a coup was attempted to kidnap the God-Emperor to prevent him from surrendering (Himself).

I understand and know these things.

You wave your hand figuratively and say "Fiddledeedee. Atoms are bad, mmmmkay? Bad. Why did we ever invent them?"

.... I hope you're trolling.

hindsighty:

I think you can safely drop the suffix on your moniker.

Unix sez "In 2003, we had a military who had to dedicate 1/2 of their logistic effort to the siege of Iraq.

Asked for support for this assertion, provided nothing :)

Granted, you're apparently a kid in school, and in your experience, nothing existed before Wikipedia, but some of us have personal experience we can count on, and cite.

You're the one who called the claim "Dubious" without any backing, cites, or anything other than your cranium to back you. (Thus demonstrating your hypocrisy.)

I even told you what to Google to learn.

Here.
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=clinton+bottoms+up+review&btnG=Submit

That was the "peace dividend". Cause decommissioning big ships gets noticed and people protest. Scrap some supply ship nobody's ever heard of? Hey! Lookit our budget prowness!

Google "Win-hold-win" strategy. (If you also ever encounter anybody who says "
"US presence in Saudi Arabia, which was necessary to support Deny Flight, was Osama bin Laden's casus belli."
Who cares? When it comes to making war the grievances of lunatics merit not consideration.

.... You realize (well, you don't, because you're clueless), that you just refuted yourself?

First, with that you have an understanding of what the Iraq situation was, much less Middle East, much less Al Queda, and that your worldview is disjointed and not connected, while you're lecturing us and insulting us?

The point was that our siege of Iraq - based largely in Saudi Arabia - was a large part of what bin Ladin used to recruit people to try and kill hundreds of thousands of people in NYC, and wreck the US economy (So we'd leave the Holy Land).

(They failed at their goals. I'm sure you're unaware of their goals, because it's only well documented, but not in comic books.)

You have to understand that there's an organic whole here, with forces and counterforces and sometimes, there's not a "good" answer, and sometimes there's just "less bad".

Once you get older, and get some responsibility, and have to make some decisions, you might learn.

But yes, you have to take into account "the grievances of lunatics ".

Especially when you're discussing something as intertwined with as many "lunatics" as the Middle East, and our geopolitical position.

Or, basically, what you're saying is your view is as simplistic as "nuke everybody, let god sort it out", but you're trying to seem like you're some sort of deep thinker to get there.

You're not, and it's obvious. You're a child, in mind, if not age (but I'd put my money on both), and it shows.

In short: Almost everything you've said is wrong, demonstrably wrong....

He's not only wrong, he's wrong at the top of his voice.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R41701.pdf

Table 1 at the end give the estimated annual costs of the Northern and Southern no fly zones in Iraq.

> I found that self portrait

These taunts are kiddie anger. This is what you came to the internet — in another country — to share?

Meanness around here does require a wee bit more sophistication.

Thanks for the Barnett links Crid. I did find his speech enlightening. I think his talk created some new brain cells for me. Very much needed since I'm sure reading wtf and hindsighty killed some.

No matter how much I think I know and learn it is always fun to find out there is always more. Makes the pain of living worth while.

> a wee bit more sophistication.

Yeah. It's ok to fake it if you can be convincing. Enfranchisement works like this:

#1. Don't pretend it's your concern if it's not... Like, say, if you're from another country that's nowhere near as shit-together within the context under discussion.

#0. Be interesting.

#2. Know enough about the topic so we'll be glad to have read you even if you're wrong.

Splat-brains-on-sidewalks ROFLMAO!'s, etc., don't amuse, inform, or convince. Why bother?

I love that I'm somehow a child because I think sinking a trillion dollars into the project of building an Islamist republic was a bad idea. Funny, those on the other side of this debate seem more like children, insisting upon the correctness of a wrong decision because they just want to be right so badly. Amidst the mea culpas of most supporters of the war, I guess there have to a handful holding up the other side.

Jeff, you seem to think I offer no alternative. Here was the alternative: contain Saddam, protect our country and allies, and slap him down again should he invade another country nearby. There was nothing about Iraq to suggest Saddam was a special threat to our interests; he was just another bad dude in a region full of them. Further, his military, even in its depleted state, served as a helpful regional counterbalance to the power of Iran.

Per Conan, the no-fly zones cost in the hundreds of millions a year (thanks for the helpful link), a cost we could have afforded essentially forever. While not nothing, this amount was trivial compared the cost of invasion and occupation. Not squandering lives and resources in Iraq, we would have been freer to aggressively pursue the terrorists who attacked us in Afghanistan. As a result, President Bush might have had the pleasure of giving the order to kill Bin Laden, rather than ceding that Obama.

Taunting aside – no, fuck that, I think ya'll are crazily, stupidly wrong about this, and it's impossible to resist the urge – there's a fundamental divide here, that is what we're really arguing about. And FWIW, I'm not an anti-war lefty, I'm a realist.

My perspective is that it simply is not the job of our military and foreign policy to remake the world in our image, or to smite the wicked, or to drop bombs on people who disrespect us (Saddam qualified on all counts). I think what we should be about is protecting our interests and those of our allies. (and within reason, with respect to allies). Period, full stop.

Those who persist in supporting the Iraq venture, it seems, think that it is the role of our military to bring American values to the world, and that we can and should do this, even in the case of countries that pose us no real threat to our security, as was the case in Iraq. Merely the potential to serve a nuisance is sufficient, if there might be some strategic value (energy resources, proximity to allies, etc). This is why I assume, Jeff, above, seemed to think it so important that we DO something about Iraq, that Saddam couldn't just be left in power until he died and his sons squabbled over the country.

This is a mindset that will drive us to ruin. While our resources are vast, they are finite. More ventures like Iraq will drain us just as the strains of empire drained England and France and the other nations of Europe. Attempting to control and remake huge swaths of the world outside our borders, as you all seem to think not just advisable, but critical, will lead to our destruction. It always has.

Per Conan....

You're still wrong.

And you're mighty free with other people's money and misery. A blockade is always more expensive both in terms of money and misery. A blockade holds back the economy and future of the blockaded. You're willing to condemn Iraqis to a Third Word dictatorship with sadistic overseers who routinely send their own people to die in industrial-sized plastic shredders and suffer in rape rooms. You're not the enlightened humanitarian you want others to think you are.

Whatever they have now, they have the space to determine their own future - if they can keep it.

What's more, as those others have pointed out, you've completely ignored what might have happened if the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was never carried out. You lack vision.

I love that I'm somehow a child because I think sinking a trillion dollars into the project of building an Islamist republic was a bad idea.

No, you're a child for not understanding what you're blathering about, and believing in magic.

Here was the alternative: contain Saddam, protect our country and allies, and slap him down again should he invade another country nearby.

Which emboldened him, cost us a massive amount - not just what we expended.

The people we had sitting there "in case" Saddam did something, or needed to be "smacked down", were people and equipment we couldn't use elsewhere.

And you won't deal with the fact that we didn't have the capability to do that. Iraq was the "war" we were fighting, we didn't have the logistics to go fight somewhere else.

Our (wildly successful) early days in Afghanistan were brilliant examples of what could be done with small groups of well-used teams.

... That was all we could afford to support.

Had we needed more men on the ground, we couldn't have supplied them.

In the meantime, Saddam's stature grew, because he repeatedly tweaked our noses.

Not squandering lives and resources in Iraq, we would have been freer to aggressively pursue the terrorists who attacked us in Afghanistan.

I look forward to your explanation of why we only put small groups of men on the ground initially in Afghanistan. (For the later days, we essentially hoped North Korea would behave (they didn't, they challenged us when we pulled our reserves from that area)).

My perspective is that it simply is not the job of our military and foreign policy to remake the world in our image, or to smite the wicked, or to drop bombs on people who disrespect us

Funny, I don't recall advocating any of that.

Well, that's not true. I *would* have advocated strongly pushing our Federated system on Iraq.

We didn't. So it's a null set, that we "remade" Iraq in the UK's image.

Attempting to control and remake huge swaths of the world outside our borders, as you all seem to think not just advisable, but critical, will lead to our destruction. It always has.

Nope. But sometimes you're stuck with bad choices. Your choices would have us still surrounding Saudi Arabia (For how long?) spending how much, for how long?

You miss that your solution never had an end, and possibly a far worse downside.

Oh, and you forgot to add.

So how much are you budgeting to deal with the Nuclear Khadaffy and Libya in the Middle of the "Arab Spring?"

You know, the horribly advanced program that the invasion of Iraq flushed out?

Silliness.

> a cost we could have afforded essentially
> forever.

So you're not actually against war with Iraq, you just wanna quibble over tactics. Good to know! I presume there's some printed record of your enthusiasm for that decade-long, percussively lethal effort of ours... Including after the French dropped out, I mean. ('Cause it's a morality thang: You're not afraid of being lonely, right?)

> I love that I'm somehow a child because
> I think…

Others may think you're child because of the money part, but I think you're a child for being such a snot.

Well, that, and the myriad confusions in this passage:

> Those who persist in supporting the Iraq
> venture, it seems, think that it is the role
> of our military to bring American values to
> the world, and that we can and should do this,
> even in the case of countries that pose us no
> real threat to our security, as was the case
> in Iraq.

America is modernity. Our values aren't pornography to be hoarded and fondled in private. They deserve shameless display and proud (and bold) defense on the street.

We don't want psychopathic crime families in charge of the world's first-or-second best source of oil just as the Chinese are getting thirsty, because civilization's chore in this century is to get the Chindian middle classes online without overturning the whole fucking chessboard.

Your view of "real threats to our security" is shortsighted, smug, and presumptuous; a scared child's prayer rather than a thoughtful man's appraisal.

Verily: My what are an idiot, Sugarbun… Always & forever.

Moar.

The childishness of Hindy's perspective is fractal.

When you read the things these people say, they're always in the temperament of children. Bitter children, ones who are desperately trying to force the other kids at the table (or in the back of the station wagons) to agree to a clumsy, poorly-abstracted set of rules:

Remember! First, we all have to keep our hands to ourselves, even you Tommy, and even when our neighbor is eating candy. And then, if someone breaks the rules, we can call Mom & Dad to sort it out.

Unless you think DC is your Dad. This is how a lot of (lesser) people regard Obama.

Anyone remember these?

The point wasn't the hidden danger. Presumably none of the first Google listings, which tend to be from military guys rather than literary types, will explain those airplanes. (And I lost the best explanation I ever saw many years ago.)

Somewhere in Iraqi/Arabian folklore is the story of a warrior who buried a sword in the sand, and came back for it years later to fulfill a destiny of glorious victory.

Saddam was not living in the 20th century West, and he certainly had no concern with Hindy's boundaries for a "real threat to our security."

PS- The Sand Planes have nothing to do with the centrifuge in Obedi's lawn, which was buried for the reasons you might expect.

[hindsighty: ] Jeff, you seem to think I offer no alternative. Here was the alternative: contain Saddam, protect our country and allies, and slap him down again should he invade another country nearby.

Your alternative has earned you an F-.

Why? Because you devoted scarcely one syllable to the consequences of that alternative. You completely failed to consider them to anywhere near the same extent as your recitation of the costs of deposing Saddam.

That is as sure a sign as anyone could hope for that your judgment in this matter is impaired by your complete unwillingness to assess your preferred alternative -- and that lack of assessment doesn't stop at merely the consequences, you take as true that which was far from likely: that the no fly zones and sanctions could be sustained much longer, never mind indefinitely.

Unix has already covered your failures in this regard pretty thoroughly, but I want to emphasize the consequences of the Oil For Food program.

How many Iraqi lives would you have been willing to sacrifice in order to keep Saddam in power?

> You completely failed to consider them to
> anywhere near the same extent as your recitation
> of the costs of deposing Saddam.

Exactly... see the "Producer" thing above. Rather than think of their own development as being frozen, these commenters like to picture the world is a fragrant bouquet of possibilities, so long as their own virtue is the standard.

The rest of us move on without them.

TARGET RICH ENVIRONMENT! I'm sure I missed some posts. Let me know if you feel neglected.

"Per Conan....
You're still wrong."

I think I read that table right. Was there a year there in which expected costs for either no-=fly zone exceeded a billion dollars? As I read it, each year was in the hundreds of millions.

"A blockade is always more expensive both in terms of money and misery"

Than what, invading and occupying a country?

"You're not the enlightened humanitarian you want others to think you are."

Not humanitarian. See previous: realist.

"No, you're a child for not understanding what you're blathering about, and believing in magic."

Waiting to be informed of a factually inaccurate assertion that I have made.

"In the meantime, Saddam's stature grew, because he repeatedly tweaked our noses."

With whom and why do we care?

"I look forward to your explanation of why we only put small groups of men on the ground initially in Afghanistan."

We didn't know the country, terrain or what the fuck we were doing. It was months after 9/11 and we were a mess. If the logistical issues you mentioned were the problem, there were easy solutions short of invading another country: buy some trucks; buy some boats; hire some IT guys; etc, etc. So far, your point on logistics is the only place you've shed light on the situation; regardless, it's the kind of problem that's fixed as soon as someone gives a crap and has money (i.e. anything defense related post 9/11), so, trivial.

"You miss that your solution never had an end, and possibly a far worse downside."

1) Who cares? There are no end points in many human endeavors. I have to shave every day. BUT I MIGHT WANT A DIFFERENT BEARD. Solving shit forever is overrated. 2) What was that downside?

"Which emboldened him, cost us a massive amount - not just what we expended."

So containing him emboldened him? How did that work? It cost us that which we did not expend? NOW THAT'S MAGIC

"Iraq was the "war" we were fighting, we didn't have the logistics to go fight somewhere else."

Hmmm, buy some boats and planes and trucks, or invade a country. Wat do? Which is the bigger challenge?

"I look forward to your explanation of why we only put small groups of men on the ground initially in Afghanistan."

We knew neither the country, nor the people nor the situation. Our president at the time campaigned against nation building. Or maybe we needed better logistics, as you assert. Which was an easy problem to solve once we gave a crap. Logistics are readily rebuilt by determined people with resources.

Though, aligning with the northern alliance was a bad idea. Our Afghanistan efforts should have begun and ended with killing Bin Laden.

"So you're not actually against war with Iraq, you just wanna quibble over tactics"

I'm not against the idea of using our military when it's likely to advance our interests. Keeping Saddam contained seemed sensible; invading and overthrowing him did not. Again, not anti-war.

"We don't want psychopathic crime families in charge of the world's first-or-second best source of oil just as the Chinese are getting thirsty, because civilization's chore in this century is to get the Chindian middle classes online without overturning the whole fucking chessboard."

Do you work with, or hire, or know people from China? Or any of the other growing pac rim countries like vietnam, indonesia, etc? I do. The young class there are widely pro-western. Control of the oil is just about who benefits from the haircut energy producers can extract.

"The problem is that the realm of international affairs isn't suburban childhood. There's no "Daddy" to call, no supreme and overwhelming moral authority.."

Exactly. So we take care of ourselves and look out for our friends. Done.

> Control of the oil is just about who benefits
> from the haircut energy producers can extract.

That's naive and butthurt... If you're that offended when others turn a profit for fulfilling your needs, even those as nuanced and profound as those soothed in a modern oil economy, then choose one:

☐ Option A
Fly to Papua New Guinea, shed your clothing and personal effects (including your Ipod™), step naked into the forest on some Godforsaken isle, and make your way without benefit of modern economic intercourse… Because the fundamentals of commerce are always going to be too frightening for you to navigate with adult confidence.

☑ Option B
Slit your wrists and exit a planet which will never love you with the enraptured warmth your magnificent Disney heart so righteously deserves.

> So we take care of ourselves and look out for
> our friends. Done.

Former President Boosh will no doubt feel deep gratitude for your heartfelt affirmation of his policy. Indeed, the entire developing world is "our friend," and we will not turn a blind eye to their needs.

This thread may be dying, so let me take this last moment to say that Raddy never answered my challenge to cite an occasion where I spoke as one of—

> those who celebrate the fall of the Soviet Union,
> not realizing that the fragmented political
> structure and resulting nuclear-weapons shell
> game made things much worse for us.

M'kay? When you accuse someone of thinking like that, there oughta be a reason. I'm quite certain I never described the dissolution of central control of Soviet nuke stocks as happy news.

It's nonetheless good that the second most powerful government in the world, whoever she might be, doesn't regard the United States of America as an adversary for whom M.A.D. and Global Wheat Toast are worthwhile outcomes. Even most belligerent of larger nations nowadays tread fairly softly.

If someone plunders an old Soviet sub and dirty-bombs Seattle –a scenario of sufficient probability to deserve respect— it will be bad. Real bad. I like Microsoft and Nirvana as much as any guy who got laid in the 1990's.

But if Seattle gets nuked, we'll investigate and capture the attackers, and spend a year or so thinking about whether their host nation deserves invasion.

And then… despite the thundering neon naiveté inferred by this blog post and nourished in its comments… we will go on with the business of being the most fabulous, tits-out, money-making, moon-walking, child-loving nation this globe has ever seen.

We will, specifically, not spend the next hours cowering in righteous fear that Miami and Indianapolis and Charlotte and Phoenix are next... Which is what we'd have done during the Cold War, when I was young and beautiful, and the only imaginable wars had crisp, neatly-charted beginnings and endings, with some national capital planning our demise.

There's no NATION on the globe stupid enough to risk head-on confrontation with the United States. We've got the biggest, loudest gun, and everyone on the planet knows it. We can defeat any identifiable enemy.

That's part of what bugs me about Raddy's wording. This—

> the fragmented political structure and
> resulting nuclear-weapons shell game

—suggests that we should prefer government-sized adversaries, the kind who are ready for a fistfight lasting longer than one ugly punch. This thinking is part of the horror we're getting from an overfed Federal government in other contexts.

Regulators don't like small business, because small business is easy to kill but difficult to regulate. If the such-and-such Federal Commission demands that businesses rebuild all their doorways to accommodate Overweight Americans, the expense is easier to hide in IBM's profits than in those for Elmer's Muffler Shop, which may fold under the mandate.

For the Pentagon specifically: Despite its bloodshed on 9/11, the DOD continues to pretend our next fight will happen in the Taiwan Strait in 2025... Because money is more conveniently spent and diverted that way.

This thinking is to be discouraged, always. If there's a reason to heed the isolationists on this page, that's it.

> Under Hussein the Iraqi government was secular.

Ummmmm....

"That's naive and butthurt... If you're that offended when others turn a profit for fulfilling your needs, even those as nuanced and profound as those soothed in a modern oil economy, then choose one:"

You missed the point so thoroughly one must conclude it was intentional. I'm not upset about people making profits. You're ignorant about the developing world and the pertinence of Iraq to it. I hire and we are marketing there; the people I meet just don't give a crap about where their energy comes from. Saddam, the US, whomever, the stuff is fungible.

"Former President Boosh will no doubt feel deep gratitude for your heartfelt affirmation of his policy. Indeed, the entire developing world is "our friend," and we will not turn a blind eye to their needs."

If any,you got the wrong former president from that august yankee clan.

> the stuff is fungible.

You've noticed? So why are you prattling about "the haircut energy producers can extract"? Innovation is happening all over, but nowhere more than in the United States. Competition is fierce. "Haircuts"?

> If any,you got the

?

Crid, usually I am in agreement, but want to quibble on a couple of points.

While true, that DOD is usually preparing to fight the last war, there is no way for them to prepare for hundreds of possible terrorist scenarios, in every corner of the globe.

The best they can do, is to be ready for one or two projected major conflicts or flash points, and then hope like hell, their resources and training can be adapted and deployed to cope with an emerging threat, that was not on the radar.

One of the main purposes of a standing military is to project an appearance of readiness for a conflict, and make your enemies think twice before they take you on.

I personally prefer the choice of Asia, as the place to focus our military resources, because
our trade alliances, and our growing energy independence means that Europe, and to a lesser extent, the Middle East, are well on their way to becoming backwaters economically.

The only thing worse than preparing for the wrong conflict, is sitting there with our thumbs up our ass, preparing for peace, and thinking that our enemies around the world, have learned a lesson not to mess with the U.S.

Unfortunately people are idiots, and have short memories, and it seems those lessons last a generation, at most, until some third world dictator, decides that he is invincible, and tries to initiate World War III.

> usually I am in agreement, but want to
> quibble on a couple of points.

You wanna quibble? In blog comments? Oh, Dear Woman, you're a sister… Come sit beside me.

> there is no way for them to prepare for
> hundreds of possible terrorist scenarios

Fate won't constrain her outcomes to those we find convenient. We should therefore not allow the DOD's careerists, vendors, and idiot Congressbeasts to squander our resources on improbable —but endlessly remunerative— scenarios.

> until some third world dictator, decides
> that he is invincible

But Angel, that's my point precisely: The Third World is exiting Asia at a fantastic pace! Of course there are going to be tremendous problems in China and India, mostly with young men, as they service their emergent middle classes in the decades ahead. But the United States isn't the source of those threats, and they know it... We're the model for their solutions. They certainly wouldn't be investing over here as they have been if they thought we'd use the money for putting new subs in the South China Sea, rather than for putting new a big screen in the Family room.

I literally happened across this link as I was typing this response; It's about an hour old. You find examples like that all the time when you start looking for them. China is said to have a million people in Africa, working on different kinds of development and Foreign Direct Investment. They'll be our partners in the containment of terrorist threats in the Third World, as they freaking well ought to be.

This will he wonderful for these reasons and many more— First, China has an Africa's worth of poverty in its own interior, so their experience in bringing naive populations to modernity is a lot fresher than ours (in Appalachia or wherever). Second, Asia is full of countries that have no compunction about killing brown-skinned Muslims who make trouble: They do not fear the optics which constrain the West.

The Norks are the most worrisome thing in Asia, but I believe their neighbors have taken notice, and are far more at risk than we are.

So...

…So I'm much more afraid of this than of anything in the East.

Again, I stole most of this from Barnett.

More recent. (See all the clips in that series.)

Yea Crid, I am much more afraid of the debt too. It is wiping me out, year by a year at 10 to 12 percent a year net loss, to inflation.
We just stopped eating out three years ago. Haven't bought a new car in 20 years, and probably never will again.

"In the meantime, Saddam's stature grew, because he repeatedly tweaked our noses."

With whom and why do we care?

Because in conflict, psychology matters.

You failed to take on board the fatal problems with the Oil For Food program, which would have led to the collapse of your preferred alternative.

Which means you have to account for the consequences of that possibility.

Which you haven't.

If your consideration of downside risks hasn't included the possibility of another war between Iraq and Iran, closing the Straits of Hormuz for, say, three months, then you aren't paying attention.

No surprise there.

Oh, by the way, can I take it that the lives of the subjects of a brutal dictator are worth less than the rest of us?

Sounds like it.

hindsighty:

You're proving my comment that "hindsight is not always 20/20".

"No, you're a child for not understanding what you're blathering about, and believing in magic."

Waiting to be informed of a factually inaccurate assertion that I have made.

Child, you've been informed and tutored well. It's not our fault you insist on ignorance.

"In the meantime, Saddam's stature grew, because he repeatedly tweaked our noses."

With whom and why do we care?

Child, it's the crux of the problem, and if you're going to talk about how the invasion was "wrong", you need to understand how the adult world works.

"I look forward to your explanation of why we only put small groups of men on the ground initially in Afghanistan."

We didn't know the country, terrain or what the fuck we were doing. It was months after 9/11 and we were a mess.

Childish explanation. 9/11 didn't mess up anything in the military system.

If the logistical issues you mentioned were the problem, there were easy solutions short of invading another country: buy some trucks; buy some boats; hire some IT guys; etc,

And if nothing else can demonstrate how childish your view is...

It takes years to build supply chains. Stockpile equipment. "Logistics" isn't just moving things. Even if you hire "IT guys" today, they won't be effective for weeks. Months.

There's no "walmart" for logistics on the scale needed. There's years of bidding and planning and building.

etc. So far, your point on logistics is the only place you've shed light on the situation;

I appreciate that you note that it's important (even while you claim as I quoted just above that I've provided you nothing of value). But it's at the heart of the matter.

The siege of Iraq was crumbling, and we were about to have a resurgent Saddam, having "beaten" the US, with not just WMD but huge amounts of oil to hand to the terrorists and supporters.

And our logistics were strapped. There was no spare to send troops to Afghanistan. What we did came out of the Korean area's abilities - did you notice NorK got frisky about then?

You cannot just "write checks" and fix these things. It's a complicated system.

regardless, it's the kind of problem that's fixed as soon as someone gives a crap and has money (i.e. anything defense related post 9/11), so, trivial.

So you initial "complaint" was it cost too much, and your revised complaint is, it doesn't matter how much it cost?

Well, that's the thing. The cost it MIGHT have been is an unknown. And you're assuming that everything else would have remained static - whilst proving you don't understand a single thing about geopolitics, the situation, or the factions involved and their motivations.

In other words, it's a simplistic (childish) approach, and yes, you're wrong.

The Invasion of Iraq also flushed out a before-unknown secret nuclear program in Libya, which was a collaboration of the North Koreans, Iranians and Libyans.

After we proved our willingness to invade, (and lay hands roughly on Saddam) Khadaffy quickly informed us of it, and turned over personnel and allowed us to seize the equipment. (Handed it over post-haste).

All reports indicate that it was a very advanced program - and unknown to us.

So, in your costs you're waving away, don't forget a fully nuclear Libya, and Iran, and possibly others.

When you say "target rich environment", you're talking about your simplistic view, not a much longer view and nuanced view that you're attacking out of utter ignorance.

Jeff:

In fairness...

Oh, by the way, can I take it that the lives of the subjects of a brutal dictator are worth less than the rest of us?

He already said that that's the case.

My perspective is that it simply is not the job of our military and foreign policy to remake the world in our image, or to smite the wicked,

And of his blathering, I can respect that more than the rest. We can't fix everything, and we can't even try.

"These taunts are kiddie anger. This is what you came to the internet — in another country — to share?"

"Meanness around here does require a wee bit more sophistication."

I find racism (not sure what the word is in English?) childish in the first place. Especially when brought up in relation from everything from gay marriage to international relations. So, when in Rome.....

"You wave your hand figuratively and say "Fiddledeedee. Atoms are bad, mmmmkay? Bad. Why did we ever invent them?""

You missed the whole point, Unix.

I criticized one decision made by an administration of your government over 65 years ago. And look at the HAVOC I created. Yet it is acceptable for Crid and Co. to criticize not only an entire country as a whole, but citizens of that country simply for the fact that they do not agree with that countries philosophy.

And it isn't only Canadians. Crid and Co. even involve Europe. Americans defend the right to free speech like rabid dogs, yet snarl like them too when someone has the gall to utter a dissenting opinion.

Crid and Co. might say that I have "no right" to comment on American Internal affairs, yet when they pull this argument out over everything from dog pictures to fashion, I find it loses it's validity. I also question why they find fault with me for "criticizing US internal affairs, yet turn around and mock not only individual citizens of another country, but that country as a whole. If it were limited to me, I might leave it alone, yet I am not the only one.

If you can give it, you can take it.

> when someone has the gall to utter a
> dissenting opinion.

No, only when foreigners pretend their "dissent" has standing. With nothing on the line, you have nothing to "dissent" from. You're welcome to be as fussy and whiny as you want... But don't imagine we have any need to consider your judgment. How you conduct your own affairs tell us much more about your deepest beliefs than do your words.

PS— Even if you loved us very, very much, as you fucking well should, we still wouldn't care. See how that works?

PPS- 'Sides... As our security metaphor goes, living in the room over Dad's garage isn't a "philosophy."

I criticized one decision made by an administration of your government over 65 years ago.

Err, not quite. You demonstrated that you had no idea what you were talking about, what the situation was.

And then you said that it should be done differently, and it's all our fault.

And look at the HAVOC I created.

Well, you could do worse with your ignorance and apathy - you could go run for elected office and then proceed to lecture people with the power of the state and the inability to understand actions and consequences.

Yet it is acceptable for Crid and Co. to criticize not only an entire country as a whole, but citizens of that country simply for the fact that they do not agree with that countries philosophy.

Look, poutine is reason enough to use those atoms to wipe Canada off of the map.

Don't like it? Stop the madness.

Crid and Co. might say that I have "no right" to comment on American Internal affairs

No, you (you personally) have no right, because you've demonstrated you don't know what you're talking about.

criticize not only an entire country as a whole,

I think that's because you respond so well to it.

Canada is infantile in it's dealings with the world, sheltered by being inside the US zones.

It's since cut back on its expenditures, allowing the bulk of the work to fall on the US.

As many other countries have.

But I don't think Crid is insulting all Canadians, just the ones who think that's the natural order of things.

Canada has some fearsome warriors. They've got to ride on US Air Force or US Navy vehicles to get to the fight, but when they do, they do a damn good job. In terms of man-for-man abilities, the Canadian forces, as depleted as they are, are able to hold their own.

When I sneer at the Canadian military, I'm not sneering at the men and women IN it. I'm sneering at the politicians who sold off their gear to afford "Free healthcare". I'm sneering at the pols who seriously talked about buying a squadron of Attack Planes in a timeshare with New Zealand.

Or the pols who sold off 1/2 of the F-18s so they could keep flying the other 1/2.

Yes, I sneer at the Canadian military forces - but not at the service people making them up. Those guys are awesome.

Just the people like you who mortgaged the future for "free" shit now. Those I do mock.

And really, poutine?

Canada is infantile in it's dealings with the world, sheltered by being inside the US zones.

Minor edit/addition:

And after cutting back (to nothing) on the force projection, then very haughty in their expectations, looking down at those rednecks in their camo and stars and stripes on the sleeves.

"Well, *sniff* We're not AMERICANS. We're cultured and refined, and we have wonderful relations with Cuba!" (Or wherever else.)

Of course you do. Any time the Cubans (or whoever else) might threaten your interests, you'd call....

The Americans.

Crid:

So I'm much more afraid of this than of anything in the East.

And the fact that all these places who sneer at the 'orrible Muricans haven't started to figure out what happens after Pax Americana wanes gives me some giggles.

Then I go and buy more supplies.
(Used to be Ammo, but not anymore)

I think I read that table right. ... Was there a year there in which expected costs for either no-=fly zone exceeded a billion dollars?

You didn't. It was over $1 billion at least twice.

And the report fails to consider the opportunity costs (things we couldn't do because we had those men and materiel engaged in enforcing two no-fly zones) - whether it was training those men in new techniques of aerial combat or on new equipment, intervening somewhere else in the world, humanitarian missions, etc.

It also fails to include fatigue costs, both in morale and equipment.

==========================

"A blockade is always more expensive both in terms of money and misery"

Than what, invading and occupying a country?

Often, yes.

A lengthy and costly blockade always runs the risk that the blockading coalition will tire of maintaining it and fracture: What would have happened if the Saudis decided they no longer needed our protection and asked us to leave? How would we have maintained the no-fly zone then?

A lengthy blockade runs the risk that the blockaded party will find an ally on the outside to help them subvert or even break the blockade: Oil for Food, anyone?.

Not humanitarian. See previous: realist.

Your brand of realism has plunged the world into war before ... and will again.

=========================

When I sneer at the Canadian military, I'm not sneering at the men and women IN it.

The record for the longest sniper shot ever made is held by a Canadian. He broke the old record, set only a few hours earlier ... by another Canadian.

[CtG:] A lengthy and costly blockade always runs the risk that the blockading coalition will tire of maintaining it and fracture: What would have happened if the Saudis decided they no longer needed our protection and asked us to leave?

Or, what if the Saudi's decided that the blockade was bound to fail, and they would be faced with a resurgent Saddam.

In which case, to make the best of a bad situation, they would defect from the blockade in the hope of currying some favor with Saddam.

That hindsighty, is why psychology matters.

Iran's mortal enemy was, with Saddam in power, Iraq.

Imagine the consequences if the Saudis asked us to leave rather than be holding the bag when the blockade collapsed.

Can you say "Middle-East nuclear arms race?"

What do you suppose the costs would be if the Straits of Hormuz were closed for three months?

Yes, we paid dearly for getting rid of Saddam, and the aftermath.

But it was a piddling expenditure compared to very plausible downside risks.

That you won't, or can't, fathom.

I love Canada. And her Canadians. What's not to love?

They shouldn't pretend to be citizens of the United States... Thassall.

Did I mention my love for Lala?



Colby Cosh is good, too. In a different kind of way.

I think wtf has a crush on you Crid. I also note she is doing a little stalking. Your love for Lala may either piss her off, or make her go away. I'd watch your back.

I note she used Crid and Co. several times. I don't think I am at the level yet, if ever, but the others are and I think she meant it to be offensive. She apparently is starved for the attention of intelligent men. Obviously didn't get it from the other men in her life since they never informed her about the history of WWII.

You know how people tell everyone they found Jesus when they do? Well, Crid gave me a come to Jesus moment in this thread and I have to tell you about it. In my past, or should that be younger years as a young turk, I make a several quite smart projections, and only one error relating to home computers, that caused me to become quite wealthy. Then, I married the wrong woman and lost my wealth. So overall I've become quite confident to understand the actions of the world. After all, I was correct about Japan.

You can see above that Crid brought Barnett to the discussion. I had not known of him. I watched his one and a half hour talk in Canada (you would do well to listen wtf)and read his blog and other things I can find. Point is, this is my come to Jesus, I was totally wrong in my understanding of the role of China. I thought if would go the way of Japan in addition to being our greatest enemy. My eyes have seen the coming of the Lord if we don't fuck it up.

God I love Amy's place. I lust in my heart for her more than I do Lala - You can't beat brains, which are used, intelligence, beauty and curves. Eat you heart out Jimmy.

See Barnett's 2011 roadshow, about an hour long in 9 pieces. The map is reconstituted as flows. For all I know, his math is riddled with errors, but the scope & speed of his survey is entertaining as Hell. Drink coffee first. When he blithely mumbles something about 'ultrasound in India' into a sip from of a styrofoam cup, consider that he's talking about a bloody horror, a counter-feminist medievalism, with the proportions of holocaust... And Indians (with others) are going to pay a terrible price for it.

The Big Picture ain't for pussies... By which I mean wimps, which is my complaint with Amy's original post: Yeah, things are really bad in Iraq, but it's not like the people in the United States tried to do anything more for the people of Iraq than invade them. It wasn't just a failure for the sisters. And a few jars of actual peanut butter might have demonstrated enough concern to truly improve some Iraqi lives.

We were wrong to trust Bush... Not because he started the war, but because it never occurred to him to win it.

Crid:

History forked. :)

We were wrong to trust Bush... Not because he started the war,

Most of us didn't trust him. We just were glad it wasn't Gore in the Big Chair.

"Err, not quite. You demonstrated that you had no idea what you were talking about, what the situation was."

Like you yourself are doing right now you mean?

You criticize Canada's military expenditures, correct?(In addition to poutine, so much for infantile.....never did like apple pie myself, more a croissant type of girl, they go fabulous with Tim Horton's)

OK, let's take a look at that.

Canada has more land mass than every single country in the world, save one. (Quick, without Google, tell me what it is.) We also have a smaller population than you do, with a birthrate declining so rapidly we have to rely on immigration to bolster our numbers. We're also stretched very thin, between Afghanistan, the Congo, the Carribean, and Egypt, to name a very few.(My uncle is currently stationed in Egypt, training fighter pilots. I'm sure he'd like to thank all of you in person for the "Canadian's are pussies" comments. Then you could thank him for the black eye after you spit out your teeth.)

Given current economic conditions, our smaller population, and cuts to the military made before 9/11 ever happened, how many troops on how many vehicles in how many countries do you think Canada can afford? Yours is not the only conflict in the world and we do have other obligations. We're the peacekeepers, remember? You know that about us right?

But you knew all that right? You also know we're constantly having to maintain Artic Sovereignty? You also know that Canada is making strides in bolstering personnel and replacing an aging fleet?

Also, the statement that I have no right to comment on American internal affairs is, in and of itself, valid. If you look back over my posts, I actually don't. The only time I do post on American affairs is when they concern Canada or the world at large. Nuclear strikes against Canada against any country that "fucks with you" (love that one, so 'hood.), or American gun control laws kinda fall under that category, regardless of what Crid and co. say.

Can you make the same statement?

At any rate, your comment that my comments make no sense are correct sir. Crid's comment's regarding Canadians rarely make sense. Especially considering the frequency with which he makes them, and the topics the posts themselves are concerning. If I am to be treated to a sideshow of nonsense, I think it only fair that I participate.

I am only very familiar with WWII as relates to Canada and England's involvement. Given that Crid seems to put very little effort into his research involving Canadians, and given his own childishness and that of his cohorts, I feel it only fair that I put the same lack of effort and knowledge into researching and then criticizing their country as they do with mine.

"And then you said that it should be done differently, and it's all our fault."

Not. Once. I was being a smart-ass with the nuclear shit, but not once did I ever say "The war was your fault." I even went on to say the Japanese brought it on themselves. Next?

"It's since cut back on its expenditures, allowing the bulk of the work to fall on the US. "As many other countries have."

Well, seeing as how you started Afghanistan with an invasion, it seems fair to me that you shoulder the cost. 9/11 was a horrible loss of life, no question. I lost a friend myself. While I don't agree with the decision to invade, due solely to unnecessary further loss of life, I do understand it. That being said, the decision to support you in the war only came after massive pressure. We didn't agree with the war, but as I said earlier, we had obligations. Seeing as how it was your war, I think it's fair that you subsidize our contribution a mite. See above.

"When I sneer at the Canadian military, I'm not sneering at the men and women IN it. I'm sneering at the politicians who sold off their gear to afford "Free healthcare". I'm sneering at the pols who seriously talked about buying a squadron of Attack Planes in a timeshare with New Zealand."

Do I get to call you a testosterone fueled war monger now?

"But I don't think Crid is insulting all Canadians, just the ones who think that's the natural order of things."

Bullshit. Go back and read some of his posts. He mocks them out of boredom. And it isn't just me. Anyone who identifies as a Canadian is immediately a target. Also anyone who supports gay marriage, or disagrees with him. The primary reason I like bugging Crid is he's just such an asshole in the first place, and an internet bully in the second place, cause you know damn well he'd say not one thing to your face.

"Of course you do. Any time the Cubans (or whoever else) might threaten your interests, you'd call....The Americans."

Ummmm.....the only ones threatening Canada are the guys mad at us for supporting YOU.

"I think that's because you respond so well to it."

Everyone needs a hobby. Virtually smacking Crid upside the head every time he spews his bile is mine.

"When I sneer at the Canadian military, I'm not sneering at the men and women IN it."

And?

The record for the longest sniper shot ever made is held by a Canadian. He broke the old record, set only a few hours earlier ... by another Canadian.

Thank you. Appreciate it. My ex is able to shoot the center out of a toonie from 200 (ft? Km? Not knowing a whole helluva lot about weapons, I don't pay close attention, but I assume that's good.)

And Dave, you're just too stoopid for words.

"I love Canada. And her Canadians. What's not to love?"

Oh BULLSHIT! I do, however, admire your ability to suck and blow at the same time. Ever considered the adult entertainment industry? Even if you truly did LOVE Canada, (which we'd prefer if you didn't, actually...) I'd still be up your ass as often as I saw you post cause you sir, are a hypocritical bigot. Against everybody.

That being said, Crid, I issue you a challenge.

You've insulted Canada so often, I have to think it's the only thing you've got.

Pick something else. Anything else. Call me a dumb blonde. Pick on my gender. Anything. I just wanna hear a refreshing change, catch my drift?

I'll even give you a hand. I'm 5'11 in my bare feet, 160 lbs, blonde, blue eyed, wear thick glasses when I don't have contacts in, have ADD, anxiety, smoke pot, and support PETA.

There. Go.

"Oh, by the way, can I take it that the lives of the subjects of a brutal dictator are worth less than the rest of us?"

For the purposes of our foreign policy and defense calculations, the lives of Americans are the primary ones we must be concerned with; then the lives of our allies; then everyone else. Otherwise, we start to worry about the Congo and Sudan and ....

"You failed to take on board the fatal problems with the Oil For Food program, which would have led to the collapse of your preferred alternative."

My preferred alternative was containment. As long as Saddam wasn't causing mischief outside of Iraq, not our problem. If he started to, it was well within our ability to handle it.

"There's no "walmart" for logistics on the scale needed. There's years of bidding and planning and building."

We had time to rebuild these things if we needed them. You are the person making the silly claim that because logistics were somewhat challenged to support a relatively minor operation, but a full-fledged invasion was somehow logistically easier. Which, nonsense.

There was this false urgency like we needed to do SOMETHING in Iraq. Iraq hawks are just nuts about the idea that Saddam might have just been left alone, but after war and a decade plus of crippling sanctions, he just wasn't the menace ya'll seem to think.

Good point Unix, the alternative to GW Bush making the decisions about Iraq, was not [ ] it was Gore.
So when hindsighty started the task of criticizing ever decision make about the Iraq War, an honest comparison would start with "here is what Gore would have done instead", followed by a careful analysis of why, with the information available at that time, his choices would have been better.

By the way, apparently our friend John Kerry is already reaping the whirlwind, of Barrack Obama's quick, politically motivated pull out of Iraq.
He can't get the Iraqis to search Iranian planes loaded with weapons on their way to Syria. Imagine that.

"We're also stretched very thin, between Afghanistan, the Congo, the Carribean, and Egypt, to name a very few."

Forgot the link.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/operations/index-eng.asp#op1

"Nuclear strikes against Canada against any country that "fucks with you" (love that one, so 'hood.)"

I not sure you meant to type what you typed. Who said anything about nuking Canada?

Regarding, so 'hood. Well I was reared in a very small house on 98th Street between Main St. and San Pedro. I went to elementary school at Imperial and Normandie. Those are in the 'hood, oh excuse me, Los Angeles. Went to high school in Gardena. I went to Compton College, in Compton and Cal State LA in East Los Angeles.

I did a clarification about my use of nuke above but you evidently didn't read it. Do you ever nuke anything in the kitchen?

"And Dave, you're just too stoopid for words."

That's the best you can do? I'm so hurt.

"I am only very familiar with WWII as relates to Canada and England's involvement."

Well that is obvious. Too bad it didn't stop you from making ignorant comments about it. Your apology is accepted - oh, you didn't make one.

"then everyone else. Otherwise, we start to worry about the Congo and Sudan and ..."

And that's why you have us.

"I not sure you meant to type what you typed. Who said anything about nuking Canada?"

True. Typo. Should have said "nuclear strikes against any country that fucks with us."

"Well that is obvious. Too bad it didn't stop you from making ignorant comments about it. Your apology is accepted - oh, you didn't make one."

True. With all the ignorant statements made by Crid and Co., I just assumed one wasn't needed, especially when I set out to be ignorant.

"That's the best you can do? I'm so hurt."

Well, about the best I wanna do with you.....

"Crid's comment's regarding Canadians rarely make sense."

But they are funny. You haven't been here very long but you seem to think you know all about Crid. Does he live rent free in your head?

"If I am to be treated to a sideshow of nonsense, I think it only fair that I participate."

Yeah, leaving would never work. Just hang aroung and make ignorant comments and expect to build some kind of respect. First a troll, then a stalker now just a pissant.

> You've insulted Canada so often, I have to
> think it's the only thing you've got.

That's not true! I insult liberal Democrats sometimes. ("Democrats" are people in one of the larger political parties here in our country, and they're less thoughtful now than when I was a kid.) Also, I insult people who mock belief in evolution while enjoying modern medicine. And I mock people who like Julie Andrews movies. (Julie Andrews is a British woman who starred in films from our cinema industry, which is based in Hollywood, a neighborhood of Los Angeles, which is in California, a coastal state.)

(Where's Canadian cinema based? Forget it, I'm just being conversational.... I don't really need to know.)

> Anyone who identifies as a Canadian is
> immediately a target.

That's unfair! Only those who identify as a Canadian after a series of comments formed to imply that they're speaking about United States issues as United States citizens is a "target."

That such people would describe being teased (anonymously & among strangers) about their nationality as "bigotry" ought not surprise. I mean, if you were getting the stimulation you needed from discussing Canadian topics with other Canadians on Canadian blogs, you wouldn't be here, right?

You're about the sixth person I've busted for this on here. In all cases, no matter how gentle the teasing, the person has been too wounded to admit that this behavior —commenting as if they were just another US citizen enjoying a visit to Amy's blog— is strange. (And I think it's plenty strange indeed... It's not just the duplicity which rankles. It's stalker-creepy... Like being watched by an unshaven neighbor through the windows.) None of them, and most have been fully-grown adults, has offered even a word of concession that, like, they kind of lost themselves in a some small way, that they fell into a matter of some political intimacy having nothing to do with them. When the bust goes down, they dash through shame without stopping and pitch a tent in butthurt.

And actually, this happened with an Aussie a couple weeks ago. Or a New Zealander. I fergit. And on another site, it happened with a Taiwanese guy. And it's not just the internet.

Here's the deal: In much the same way that everyone daydreams of being in movies as a shadow career, everyone on the globe daydreams that they're American. Gosh, sometimes, they're even more American than Americans!

(I sincerely mean no offense by using 'American' to mean 'citizen of the United States,' and trust you to recognize this is a global habit. When people on the other six continents say American, they don't mean Canadian and they don't mean Mexican.)

And Hollywood, my own industry, is certainly a big part of the intoxication. Our media are all about immediacy and instantaneous engagement. We're the best in the world at sucking people into compelling depictions of a emotion (first in jazz, then in cinema, and now on the internet). And here the real strength of our media narratives, the part that's more moving to people even than buck-naked sex scenes: We're all about the pivotal individual. Sometimes a beauty, sometimes a fighter, sometimes an explorer: The United States makes people dream about one man who changes everything.

Bollywood doesn't do that. French & Brit cinema try sometimes, but their hearts aren't in it. They mostly do stories of finding out that (surprise!) they're actually Princes and Princesses and the whole cultural machine loves them by the command of genetic happenstance.

The United States is a special expression of human life. It's not just our wealth or our language or our farmland or any other of our treasures... We speak to people's hearts like no other nation ever could. And so distant (or even nearby) people think they understand how it works here.

But from the kinds of things you see in their rhetoric, from the kinds of experiences I've had in international travel, and from the encounters I've had with tourists and immigrants, I've come to realize: These people got no clue. They don't understand the ferocity of the competition. The don't know the work. They don't understand that because America doesn't care what your background is, the discipline of that competition never ends. These opportunities aren't just cheerful options, they're an expression of expectation. The nuances of American excellence chew through every part of our lives, and not only in flattering ways.

You do not know, you do not know. And again, I've never seen this happen in reverse. I've never heard of an American trying to convince someone on a blog in Liege that he was actually Belgian.

The rest of the world seems to feel as you do: That their opinions of American events deserve our deepest consideration... Even though they'd never dream of paying our taxes or living by our strictures. But here's the thing: You don't have to! You can live by American principles in your own little country, wherever it is! Our excellence works everyplace where it's sincerely applied.

If your feelings are so strong and so articulate and so persuasive, you should give your rhetoric to the blogs of Montreal & Winnipeg and lead your countrymen to a build a better Great White North under tomorrow's frosty dawn.

I really do enjoy Cosh, and used to comment on his blog sometimes... though I never pretended to be Canadian. Nowadays he's mostly on Twitter, though his MacLean's columns are often excellent. You should read them. His comments on events in the States are never presumptuous or intrusive. Almost never.

> There. Go.

Your clothes don't flatter you.

Are a target. Sorry.

I hate making even small mistakes in front of impressionable visitors.

> We just were glad it wasn't Gore in
> the Big Chair.

First of all, I love that metaphor.

Hell, I even liked that album. (It was from the last romantic year of my youth... Which I squandered. Next time....)

Also, Bush did little to sell the effort in a personal way, perhaps because he had no idea what the effort should encompass. I remember one piece of footage where he was talking to a room full of people, and the words just weren't there. It wasn't even stupidity, it was just incomprehension that others weren't with him already.

Paglia once described that look on his face as "Nixonian tension"... A beautiful phrase.

Well wtf what I said was:

"I say if they fuck with us, we nuke them. Game over. For example, Afgans supported dudes who flew planes into buildings on our soil. Killed people. I'd convert the sand to glass and the mountains to dust. Innocents, like those of ours killed, collateral of war. War sucks. I do not know if death sucks, yet. It only affects the living as far as I know."

I did not say ""nuclear strikes against any country that fucks with us."

You should know that when you use quotes you should use the words the person used. Obviously what you read is made up in your strange head, not mine. I have not used the word nuclear strikes.

Maybe it's my 'hood talk. Maybe it's Vietnam vet talk. Either way you didn't understand, but having read your posts that's understandable. In other words - terminate with extreme prejudice.

"Well, about the best I wanna do with you....."

Damn girl, earlier you were giving 10 to 1 you could kick my ass. I was so looking forward to it and I am not that far from you.

All of life's a circle:

The final scene shows Orzabal and the librarian as an older married couple. The video was filmed at the Emmanuel College Library in Toronto, Canada.

Like I said, what's not to love?

"And actually, this happened with an Aussie a couple weeks ago. Or a New Zealander. I fergit."

It was Aussie and you made me cringe. Felt sorry for the guy. In 1986, on my honeymoon to the downunder countries, we were shopping at the Rocks in Sydney on the morning when Reagan bombed Gaddafi's tents. Since my wife rushed me out of the hotel to go shopping before I could watch the morning news I did not know. The lady in the store said "did you hear that we bombed Gaddafi's tents." Note the we. A cab driver later in the day, Aussie cab drivers are a wealth of knowledge, like bartenders in Austin, Tx - all highly educated, told me that most Australians are so grateful for what we did for them in World War II that they often look at USA as we. They don't mean any offense. It just gave me a warm feeling, but that is just how I roll - that's why I have Labs for dogs.

"Yeah, leaving would never work. Just hang aroung and make ignorant comments and expect to build some kind of respect. First a troll, then a stalker now just a pissant."

Oh no no no my dear, you misunderstand. My intention has never been to build respect. My intention is to piss Crid off. Period. Your comment was another issue entirely, as it concerned us. And then Crid joined the party. Happy Coincidence. Everyone else just joined in.

Go back. Read some of his posts to the (paraphrased, it's 3am up here)effect that my comments concerning gay marriage are invalid due to my nationality. Eric is another one he picks on. As he says, if he's had issues with other people before, maybe HE'S the problem? I just thought maybe perhaps I'd point it out to him. Persistently.

"That's not true! I insult liberal Democrats sometimes."

I meant in regards to the opinions I post about things like fashion you ass hat, and you know it. You pretty much mock everything you don't agree with. This is why I pester you. I don't agree with many many many many MANY US decisions, I don't agree with may comments posted about relationships, but the level of snarl coming from you is unwarranted. I find it ironic that on a site about manners and such you display the manners of a wildebeest.

"you needed from discussing Canadian topics with other Canadians on Canadian blogs"

I also comment on WilWheaton.net, OttawaSun, OttawaCitizen, CFRA, BBC, and CBCnews. To name a few.

"That's unfair! Only those who identify as a Canadian after a series of comments formed to imply that they're speaking about United States issues as United States citizens is a "target.""

I actually started off with "SPEAKING AS AN OUTSIDER......"

"That such people would describe being teased (anonymously & among strangers) about their nationality as "bigotry""

Perhaps if you've had this many occasions to tease, it's not viewed as "gentle teasing"? Look how mad you guys got.

"You're about the sixth person I've busted for this on here. In all cases, no matter how gentle the teasing,"

About six, and you're trying to tell me you aren't bigoted against Canadians? And I don't call you bigoted only due to your Canadian rants. Your other rants are just as offensive.

"(And I think it's plenty strange indeed... It's not just the duplicity which rankles. It's stalker-creepy... Like being watched by an unshaven neighbor through the windows."

No borders remember? And considering our IT contributions, we have every right I'd say.

"that they fell into a matter of some political intimacy having nothing to do with them."

Your foreign policy affects us directly, whether you want to admit it or not. And that is the only time I personally comment. Next?

"When people on the other six continents say American, they don't mean Canadian and they don't mean Mexican."

Actually, there you are screamingly wrong. Most of the ones with no TV access don't know the difference. The terrorists certainly don't care if we say "Eh!"

"The United States is a special expression of human life."

And a special little flower, unto itself? Do you really imagine Canada to be that different from your own country? Let me tell you, it's not. Aside from our political differences, we're pretty much identical. Same with England, same with France. Most of the Allied countries in fact. And you know it.

"The rest of the world seems to feel as you do: That their opinions of American events deserve our deepest consideration..."

If the whole world is wrong, and you're right, maybe the world ain't wrong? As the world power it is only just that you consider the rest of the world, as it is their fate you decide. As the "world leader", it is your responsibility. Whatever war you enter into doesn't only kill American boys. It kills our boys too. And we have no choice but to send them.

"And Hollywood, my own industry"

So THAT'S why I don't like you! And since you asked, Vancouver. Strange you don't need to know that being in Hollywood, we hire out our scenery.

By the way Crid, my husband says if you love Lala, you'll love this.....

http://www.boobpedia.com/boobs/Vanessa_Gold

"I did not say ""nuclear strikes against any country that fucks with us.""

Oh no? Reads that way to me. Continuer à creuser mes petits mauviette.

Google that.

> You pretty much mock everything you don't
> agree with.

The silly things.

> I also comment on

Right. See, I think those are all Canadian sites, so commenting as someone with standing would make sense. There. On those sites.

> I actually started off with "SPEAKING AS AN
> OUTSIDER......"

In each instance? I bet not. I'da noticed. Especially with the caps.

> Perhaps if you've had this many occasions to
> tease, it's not viewed as "gentle teasing"?

The delicacy of your feeling might not have been the first concern.

> About six, and you're trying to tell me you
> aren't bigoted against Canadians?

Do you need to hear this again? Canadians who speak to issues of our internal concern as the visitors they are can't get busted.

> No borders remember?

You forgot a comma, and I've accepted no such stipulation. If you were tending your own borders, you might better observe them.

> And considering our IT contributions, we
> have every right I'd say.

To pretend you're writing from Tulsa?

> Your foreign policy affects us directly

So what? That doesn't mean you should pretend to be part of the citizenry composing it. You aren't of a citizen of the United States. You shouldn't pretend to be.

> Most of the ones with no TV access don't
> know the difference.

They know: Ottawa doesn't get Foggy Bottom's phone calls.

> The terrorists certainly don't care if we say "Eh!"

Do terrorists take note of you at all?

> Do you really imagine Canada to be that
> different from your own country?

Don't care. Canada isn't my nation, it doesn't pay my taxes or observe my laws.

> Same with England, same with France.
> Most of the Allied countries in fact.

Then why don't you comment on their blogs in the guise of a Brit, a Froglette, or an Ally?

> As the world power it is only just that you
> consider the rest of the world

As we see fit, and when we want your thoughts, we'll ask. Meanwhile you oughtn't speak as one of us... I mean, I'm embarrassed for you. You are that in love with the United States.

> And we have no choice but to send them.

Oh, Canada has choices, all cultures do. She perhaps lacks will or courage.

> And since you asked

Didn't...

> my husband says

Glad he's finding comfort from the internet, one of the great innovations America has given to the world in my lifetime.

"Oh no? Reads that way to me."

Oh. Well then, that settles it.

"Google that."

You're not the boss of me (God I love to say that).

"My intention is to piss Crid off."

That's a strange way to go through life. One would wish life had more to offer.

"Vancouver"

I thought the frenchies were closer to the other coast. Guess we can't roll aroung since you are not near me.

It's like the potbellied guy who sidles up with his thumbs in his beltloops at Dunkin' Donuts just as the cop is about to bite into a cruller and says "Ah, time for a little of the good ol' code 10-7 there... Right, Officer?"

Yeah, buddy. Good to see ya.

Your foreign policy affects us directly.

The thing is, yours affects us, too.

Canada's decision not to fund a strong military and Mexico's inability to do so means the burden of defending North America (from whatever may befall it) falls almost solely on the US. And we have to spend accordingly with a concurrent inability to create and fund Canada-like social programs.

Canada does have capable and brave soldiers, sailors, and airmen, but the Canadian government's decision not to develop or fund an ability to rapidly transport its military assets for long distances on a large scale means it's essentially a force-in-place.

For a country as vast as Canada is, that would be a serious mistake if it weren't for the US military's ability to rapidly move almost anything almost anywhere.

History is full of examples of immobile forces-in-place being outmaneuvered and quickly defeated (Singapore in 1942 is just one).

The state of Canadian military logistics:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/11/14/pol-military-arctic-supplies.html

Excerpt: "We are challenged more by operating in our own domain than in operating around the world," the country's top military commander, Gen. Walt Natynczyk said on Nov. 3. "It is harder to sustain operations in our High Arctic than it is to sustain operations in Kandahar or Kabul because in the Arctic, it's what you bring."

And in Kandahar or Kabul, as in the Arctic, it's what the US military brings.

hindsighty:

You start to make progress, like realizing the logistics issue (which you said was "dubious" before realizing, that, gee, it wasn't), then you backslide and attempt to insult people who don't have a simplistic view of the world.

"There's no "walmart" for logistics on the scale needed. There's years of bidding and planning and building."

We had time to rebuild these things if we needed them.

No, we didn't. (Or else we would have.)

We scrapped those things. They were gone. For years.

After WWII (and Korea) we scrapped all our huge-ass stockpile of iron bombs. Didn't need 'em. Sold 'em cheap to Germany to help rebuild their industry.
We had nukes now.

Then came this little incursion in Vietnam.

And we ended up buying back most of the stockpile - which we sold (under) scrap value - paying full price for the formed metal.

Because that was cheaper than restarting the production lines to the level we needed.

You are the person making the silly claim that because logistics were somewhat challenged to support a relatively minor operation, but a full-fledged invasion was somehow logistically easier. Which, nonsense.

Only to a child, or someone who can't understand the problem.

We can divert resources in the short term for peak capacity. Which we did - and I already pointed out to you, basically, we shorted the living hell out of Korea and Germany, and were able to stage and supply the invasion. We didn't have the ability to supply huge numbers of troops in Afghanistan until the Iraqi siege was lifted, and there wasn't a serious threat in Iraq.

When you say "silly" and "nonsense" you're remarking on your thought process.

Should we have invaded Iraq? Some may make the case we shouldn't.

But you've proven completely incapable of understanding what was at stake, so your opinion is worthless.

There was this false urgency like we needed to do SOMETHING in Iraq.

We'd been besieging Iraq for 15 years. France and Russia were undermining the siege, Oil for Food was starving Iraqis, while Saddam remained in power.

We were doing something. It wasn't working, and we didn't have the capability to keep doing it, especially as it failed.

Iraq hawks are just nuts about the idea that Saddam might have just been left alone

You've demonstrated no ability to evaluate that, no knowledge of the threat possessed, nor the effort required to continue trying to isolate him.

but after war and a decade plus of crippling sanctions, he just wasn't the menace ya'll seem to think.

First, it's y'all. You All.

Second, the after a decade plus, he had rebuilt his army, air force, had multiple clandestine weapons programs in full swing, and was actively seeking uranium ore.

That's not "crippling". It was crippling to the Iraqi's under him, which might have factored into Bush's thinking, perhaps even incorrectly.

But you're not placed to make that evaluation.

You think it's "Silly" to make the case that our strapped network could keep containing him.

But you've not touched the side effects of your plan. Inability to stage and supply inside Afghanistan. Much hindered role in the Arab world. Troops in the Holy Land of Islam.

Oh, and that little bit about the very advanced nuke program Libya had managed to conceal, with NK and Iran.

How much would that have cost to deal with if Tripoli had suddenly fired off a nuke and said "We got a bunch, back off"?

Or Iran took theirs and test fired it over Tel Aviv?

First, it's y'all. You All.

Thank you. I cringe every time I see it spelled "ya'll."

wtf:

And I don't call you bigoted only due to your Canadian rants. Your other rants are just as offensive.

I thought you said you were married?

Stop flirting with Crid.

I should clarify, since it's obvious hindsighty won't read what I said and think about what I meant, and it's possible to misread what I said: (And thus claim a victory on a point incorrectly.)

We didn't have the ability to supply huge numbers of troops in Afghanistan until the Iraqi siege was lifted, and there wasn't a serious threat in Iraq.

That's a joined statement. The siege lifted AND not a threat. (Which kind of goes without saying, but so does a lot of stuff I said that he dismissed as "dubious", simply because it means his simplistic view might not be a realistic one.

Conan:

Thank you. I cringe every time I see it spelled "ya'll."

No problem. Yutes today, what do you expect?

"Right. See, I think those are all Canadian sites, so commenting as someone with standing would make sense. There. On those sites."

Aren't you tired of being wrong? One of those is British, two American including this one, and three Canadian. And I said to name a few.

"You forgot a comma"

When you start correcting my grammar, I know you're on the run. English is not my first language. What's your excuse? Somehow you as the arbiter of silliness fits though.

"Do terrorists take note of you at all?"

You guys certainly seem to think so, otherwise why obligate us to fight with you? Why the all the scorn for the French and British? If we're such pussies, and so useless, why involve us at all?

"> And since you asked

Didn't..."

"Where's Canadian cinema based?"

"In each instance? I bet not. I'da noticed. Especially with the caps."

Oh I'm sorry Crid, I didn't know you were a retard with Amnesia. Apologies. Everyone else seemed to know before I opened my mouth. I'm sure other people have noticed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ee_uujKuJMI

"That's a strange way to go through life."

Isn't it though? Someone ought to tell Crid that. The difference between us is he picks random targets on a whim, whereas I pick on him to even up the score.

"Stop flirting with Crid."

Why? It's so much fun! His love letters are certainly entertaining. Would you rather I flirt with you?

"I thought the frenchies were closer to the other coast. Guess we can't roll aroung since you are not near me."

I live in Ottawa. Can you tell me which Capital that is? Ten points if you do it without Google. Crid asked where the entertainment capital of Canada is. And the "Frenchies" are all over Canada. I am impressed by your lack of knowledge concerning us "pussies" though. And about the closet you'd ever get to rolling around with me is to me' lécher le cul putain de crétin. See, now you're cultured! Nice spelling by the way.

Thank you Conan; I appreciate the in-depth criticism, using critical thought, rather than "Canadians are pussies." (Really, was that so hard?)

At any rate, as I stated before, we would be more mobile if our forces weren't stretched so thin.

I may get down on the American military, but having many family members in the Canadian military, I'm just as down on it.

Being a pacifist does not mean that I don't support our boys, and sending us out ill prepared only makes sure our boys will come home in a casket.

I actually agree with you. It's an embarrassment. The powers that be actually sent out boys out to the desert in surplus camo! "hey that works! Let's give Mohammed Mohammed a target!"

That being said, when the sad state of one's military is used as an excuse to criticize one's opinion on gay marriage rights, the argument loses it's validity and pisses people off.

"And about the closet you'd ever get to rolling around with me is to me' lécher le cul putain de crétin. See, now you're cultured! Nice spelling by the way."

You were so sure that you could kick my ass, that you gave 10 to 1 odds. I told you I'd enjoy it. Don't you remember you said: "And I might be a girl, but ten to one says I can still kick your ass." That's why I refer to rolling around, maybe my english is hard for you to understand or maybe you just don't understand martial arts.

My spelling isn't the issue but thanks anyway. It's my eyes and age.

"Someone ought to tell Crid that."

Why? As far as I know, only one person has been here longer than Crid and that would be Amy. I have read years of his posts. He has respect and credibility here, you not so much.

"The difference between us is he picks random targets on a whim, whereas I pick on him to even up the score."

You know him well, huh? You some sort of avenging angel, little girl? Oh, and about keeping score, you are the only one playing that little game, how cute. That and kicking ass your specialty?

"I live in Ottawa. Can you tell me which Capital that is?"

Don't do quizzes little girl.

"I am impressed by your lack of knowledge concerning us "pussies" though."

You are the only one I called a pussy. Don't remember that I said (above) I have fought alongside Canadians and they were not pussies? I know, we all look alike and you got me confused with someone else.

I admit I know little about Canada, or Canadians. Is that a problem for you? I never felt a need. It would just be a waste of time since there are important things in the world to learn about. I do know from having a business that sometimes dealt with Canadians and that is that they are cheapskates.

"Being a pacifist"

Dude, you are one conflicted soul. Earlier you said you could kick my ass and now you say you are a pacifist. Child, you need some serious self contemplation. Maybe you are just pissed off and incoherent. Maybe you shouldn't let Crid get to you.

[hindsighty: ] My preferred alternative was containment. As long as Saddam wasn't causing mischief outside of Iraq, not our problem. If he started to, it was well within our ability to handle it.

And my preferred alternative is that I am 6'2", and cleavage-gifted women find me as riveting as I do them.

Too bad reality is so damn stubborn.

Your preferred alternative had reached a dead end. What next?

That is the critical problem, about which you have said nothing.

[hindsighty: ] Being a pacifist does not mean that I don't support our boys.

The inimitable Steven Den Beste pegs pacifism.

Before donning yourself in a mantle of moral superiority, read it.

Seriously.

> why obligate us to fight with you?

Listen, if you truly have no agency, then we don't need to talk at all. You'll do what you're told: Very well.

> I know you're on the run.

I'll never desert a pissing match... After a few days, if we stop reading an old thread, just post a comment in a new one or send an email, and I'll be there.

> Somehow you as the arbiter of silliness
> fits though.

Not a burden. Never a chore.

See also: "Forget it, I'm just being conversational.... I don't really need to know."

> when the sad state of one's military is used
> as an excuse to criticize one's opinion on
> gay marriage rights, the argument loses it's
> validity and pisses people off.

I think gay marriage is about a large number of people on this planet becoming confused about how responsibilities are assumed and fulfilled. I feel the same about most flashpoints for violence between modernity and its enemies. And I think in both contexts, naive people will describe themselves as courageous and kind-hearted, when there's actually no reason to think so.

So there's that. I don't see how gay marriage came into this particular discussion, and don't remember your position from other threads, but would not be surprised that a person who won't take responsibility for defense of their own borders would also think the fundamentals of family are unnecessarily constricting, too.

But I almost never recognize commenters until the stupidity level crosses a high threshold. There are people who've been here for several years, and I only realize it when scanning Amy's archives. I'm not building alliances with imaginary friends.

> Everyone else seemed to know

Riiight. This is the grandiosity of that people bring to conversation with Americans, where we're all taking notes and you've excused yourself with a single mention of this. Duzzen work that way. 'Everyone SEEMED ok with it....'

Well, Seeker, no. I think a sensible commenter in an anonymous forum, when offering opinions on such matters, will make it explicitly clear that he (or she) has nothing on the line for the context under discussion, and will in fact being investing in a completely different context. Each time.

Nationhood MATTERS. You aren't a citizen of the United States... Thassall. Does this sting you that deeply?

Maybe your heart is telling you to move.

You're welcome to apply, I mean. No promises.

Like Jeff, I miss SdB... His site was one of the ones that made blogging so exciting.

His early retirement from the scene was instructive: I think he was offended when commenters or emails would disagree with him about stuff. Incessant challenge upset the rhythms of his engineering mind.

His posts were encyclopedic, and he didn't want people trying to tweak them too eagerly.

Neither he nor his commenters knew that Wikipedia was about to blossom.

Aw shit, I did stipulate "no borders."

Well, there it is... The Third World can reach out and spank us any time it wants to, and with our own airplanes and microbes and transuranic particles.... Gonna have to face it.

I still think the better nations of the world will watch their borders to keep that shit to a minimum.

"You were so sure that you could kick my ass, that you gave 10 to 1 odds. I told you I'd enjoy it"

You said (paraphrased) that I didn't have a warrior spirit cause I was a girl. You wanna talk smack, you're gonna get it back. Thought this was the whole point of the lesson? And if you'd Googled it, it would have made sense.

"Why?"

Thought we covered that. Tired of him being a dick in general and targeting Canadians specifically. Also tired of seeing people telling him what an asshole he is cause he's offended them by making fun of their dyslexia.

Nobody bothers to attack him because he's slimy greasy slippery, sucking and blowing at the same time. If you ask him, he's never actually been proven wrong. If he likes giving it so much, I say he should love taking it just as much. Again, you know he'd say not one thing to your face.

As I say, everyone needs a hobby. Knitting is so old school.

"little girl? Oh, and about keeping score, you are the only one playing that little game, how cute. That and kicking ass your specialty?"

Actually, since I'm hardly a little girl at 5'11, yes. I have 4 brothers, one is head of security at a large commercial property management company and 6'5. The other's are all over the 6'2 mark. Not to mention having 3 uncles and my foster father in the OPP on the other side. I was taught how to fight. Not that I need it though, my brother knows I kick for the crotch.

"You are the only one I called a pussy. Don't remember that I said (above) I have fought alongside Canadians and they were not pussies? I know, we all look alike and you got me confused with someone else."

You may not have called "us" pussies, but you certainly agreed with the statement. And whether pussies or cheapskates, you're still generalizing.

You've been just as ignorant as I have. if you wanna give it, you can take it. You admit you know next to nothing about my country, criticize it, but turn around and snarl at me for doing the exact same thing. The only difference is I'll wager I know a schwee bit more about your than you know about mine.

Pot, meet Kettle!

"Maybe you shouldn't let Crid get to you."

Uhhh, if you check my darling boy, he started this one.

"Before donning yourself in a mantle of moral superiority, read it."

Maybe later, time constraints. Also, I wouldn't mention moral superiority under an Iraqi subject line if I were you.

"I think gay marriage is about a large number of people on this planet..........."

Which has what to do with using my nationality as an excuse to regard my argument as invalid?

"I think... Each time."

Good for you.

"The Third World can reach out and spank us any time it wants to"

You personally Crid, seem to need it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pcl-s2dCNdg

"where we're all taking notes and you've excused yourself with a single mention of this"

I can understand why scrolling is difficult for you. Arthritis is a bitch.

By the way Crid, you still haven't answered why your government and you seem to want us to fight so bad when the general consensus (you say) is that we're useless and you have to carry our ass anyway.

"You'll do what you're told: Very well."

HA! I'll allow an ancient old man his fantasy. Just wondering why a man of your years and wisdom ever thought a woman would be obedient?

As for Canada, we're pathologically polite. Most of us would rather agree than offend. And that extends to our government as well.

And then there's me.

> Which has what to do with using my nationality
> as an excuse to regard my argument as invalid?

Goofy has patterns.

> why your government and you seem to want us
> to fight so bad

The little people like to think they're participating. You guy put look OK in uniforms.

I'll tradeja, though. If you act like grownups and take over your own defense, I for one will happily let you off the hook for bringing the rest of the world online. (You didn't watch the Canada 20/20 show, did you? That was the whole point.)

You'll probably be excluded from all profitable development thereafter as well, but gosh, by then you'll be all sturdy and grown-up.

> HA!

vs.

Choose.

Ah, here's the earlier one:

> I'll allow an ancient old man his fantasy

vs.

There's a certain disassociative quality to your appreciation for Canada's place in the world... You want a piece of moral authority without doing anything to earn it. Most of the planet is like that.

"You guy put look OK in uniforms."

I'm sorry, wha? Drunk again?

Keep sucking and blowing Crid, you're good at it.

It was late at night.

I think you're wrong in the daytime, too.