Sleeker said:
I figured that this would be brought up. This wasn't an exaggeration or deception. Rather unique circumstances led up to this. Supposedly, there were two attacks. At the time, both were believed to have genuinely been real attacks. However, with later investigation, only one incident was ruled an attack. We would not have gone to war over just one incident, as they is more likely an effect of an accident or rogue person. However, two attacks seems more like a continued and sanctioned attack. So the combination of the mistake and the real event led to our intervention. Neither would've worked on its own.
"[
NY Times - 11/6/01] WASHINGTON, Nov. 5 ‹ A new book examining secret tapes President Lyndon B. Johnson made in the early days of the Vietnam War show that
only weeks after Congress gave him the authority to pursue the war in 1964, he privately acknowledged that the incident that inspired the resolution probably never happened.
"When we got through with all the firing," Johnson said ruefully to his secretary of defense, Robert S. McNamara, "we concluded maybe they hadn't fired at all."
That unique situation was one that premised a engagement based on statments that were not true; just like Iraq.
We realized the threat of Baath party loyalists. Nearly none of the attacks are perpetrated by them. The Mullahs have more influence, but right now, most attacks are being committed by foreign fighters and by local sectarianists.
Just one of many articles showing Baath Party loyalists, a POLTICAL group that I said we never took in consideration in light of all the chocolates and flowers being strown at our feet, was indeed organizing opposition.
Hussein Loyalists Blamed For Chaos
"BAGHDAD, May 14 -- The U.S. military commander in Iraq declared tonight that remnants of Saddam Hussein's defeated government, who he said are challenging the U.S. occupation, pose a greater threat to rebuilding the country than the persistent street violence that has plagued Baghdad.
The commander, Army Lt. Gen. David D. McKiernan, said U.S. intelligence reports show loosely organized groups of Hussein loyalists, which he called "regime elements," have terrorized Iraqis, targeted U.S. troops and destroyed repairs made to Iraq's war-damaged infrastructure. The Baath Party diehards are "committed to a long fight that will complicate the mission of the coalition," he charged."
With nationalism, they'd all be working together. As of now, I think each group wants to rule by itself (overgeneralization).
That might be very well true, but that does not negate their overall uniformity of nationalism when it comes to those who are seen as occupiers. The fact that there is secterian struggle, just like predicted, does not negate the overall view.
We had a majority support it. I do not believe we need universal support.
To get re-elected?
Now.
Before the war, it was another story.
I believe what I said was support after full and frank discussions. Remember congress had to strongly insist on the NIE report from the Bush admin rather than just taking his word for it, however distorted as it was. Bush had to be hogtied to even present his case to the UN, and with all the quickly debunked claims, now we see why. And after the claims were debunked they were just repeated over and over again as if they were still legit. If Congress were to have voted
after the Powell UN speech and had discussions after all those stepped forward to refute Powell's claims; they probably wouldn't have gave Bush their very power to call for the invasion.
I thought that it meant that main operations were over.
Occupation of a foriegn land with strongholds and armed holdouts will always be the main operations.
Great article. The only problem area I really see other than a number of Sunni votes is the support for terrorist attacks against the United States. Other than that, it seems as if they liked that we invaded, but are otherwise not doing a good job after ousting Saddam.
Correct, and that is not the function of our military as the
Powell Doctrine suggests. A doctrine he, we, learned from the mistakes of Vietnam. See the parallel again? We are in fact desimating our military by having them be the very world police and nation builders that this very President said he would never do when he critcized Clinton with Bosnia.
I do think that in order to get rid of terrorism in general, we need to install pro-Western propaganda all over the Middle East.
Abu Grahib, secret prisons, civilian rapes and murders, military contractors coming in and making millions while those Iraqis we just made unemployed by bombing their infrustructure sit in their rubble and watch, that opportunity is long gone.
The fact that you call someone a 'axis of evil' and they promptly turn around and elect a nut job just to stand up to those who just invaded their neighbor doesn't help.
We can't just point of gun at another nation tell them how are way of life is better, and drop off democracy as if we were a UPS man. There will always have to be the struggle of self determination otherwise it's just a waste of time.
I think that was meant for someone else?
