William Buckley- The American objective in Iraq has failed.

I said it was "incredible" that we turned out to be right on everything and wrong on nothing while you guys turned out to wrong on everything and right on nothing and I think it was. I would have guessed that at least one or two of you guys' points would have been right, if only according to the old broken clock maxim. I never could have imagined we could have been so right on every single warning we issued. But we were. In all the pages of posting this war has generated you can't find one single serious instance of it being the other way around. Joke about it all you want, turn it into a pissing match for it's own sake. People are dead that didn't have to die. If Bush and his supporters had listened when we warned you, instead of disingenuously calling us traitors, they would be alive.

But that doesn't make me especially smart. At best it just makes me a better judge of character than you. There were plenty of smart, credentialed people issuing those warnings before me. I didn't invent them out of whole cloth. Back then, in the lead up to the war, I just chose to favor the caution recommended by those various people (including lifelong R's like Eagelburger and Scowcroft) over trusting Bush at his word. As it turned out and as we all know now, the things Bush promised us were true were not true and, if he hadn't been so bent on having this war, he could have heeded the warnings too. They were given to him and Cheney before they got to people like me or you. They chose to ignore them and suppress them and we now know they were wrong to do that. They were wrong, you were wrong, we were right. That doesn't make me happy, it makes me sad and angry. Thousands of people have died unnecessarily because you guys were wrong. Suggesting that pleases me is the most offensive thing I've ever heard. Believe it or don't, I actually care when people die unnecessarily. Every post I have made in this forum about this war has been about that. And my impassioned opposition to Bush is borne of that too, not the other way around. We warned you and you didn't listen. And now all those people are dead and more are dying. Because you and Bush and the rest didn't listen. This isn't a game. It's not a debate club. These are people with families that are dead and didn't have to die. That blood is on Bush's hands and it is on yours. You have a lot of damn nerve to continue to post the things you post here in the face of that.

By the way, not only did I not celebrate the mosque bombing (you dick) -- I haven't even posted about it. I can't condemn your heinous tactics any better than the blog I posted above -- one that was a clear as a bell indictment of the bull**** way people like you and texxx and basso argue and one that you characteristically ran away from -- so I'll leave it at that.

 

nice post dude - i definately got a good chuckle after reading that article and then seeing the obligatory irrational tradertexx "liberals hate the troops, bush and america and thats what the problem is" post. it was a textbook example of exactly what the article was talking about. oh, have they no sense of irony? great stuff!

 

Gosh, it really looks to me like more of a tidal wave of information that validates our realistic thinking. And your phrase is perhaps the most precise definition of the neocon ideas and administration actions that got us to this point.

 

but when you do it your "conserving bandwidth"...

 

not as sad and pathetic as selectively highlighting tidbits of information that they think validates their wishful thinking in order to attack iraq..

 

We could have killed a lot more innocent Iraqis if we had only tried....

 

and your point?

 

<b>If</b> we were just "invading Iraq" we could have done so in a more devastating manner. Instead, we threw out a tyrant. Millions upon millions of Iraqis are grateful. Your characterization of the event as no more than "invading Iraq" leaves a lot to be desired.

 

so if you ask iraqis millions upon millions will say that US didn't invade them?

 

i could not have said it any beter. it seems like people from either side of the fence can not admit it when the other person has any good points at all.

i mean we all know that Iraq had no WMD. and thats also given that we thought they did including other countries. but we made a mistake, which is acceptable. but the admin. has said now that we are over there we cant just leave and waste all our efforts there. but what are we over there now for?

one reason i would say would to help spread democracy and free elections. but ill be honest in that i dont really know the success in history of the U.S. or other nations in trying to do that.

and the second reason would be to stop terrorism. but hasnt that movement (?) spread all over the middle east, africa, and south america? so im not sure how occupying one country and having neighboring countries like minded people flooding into iraq to fight because they are pissed because iraq is being occupied by a country they do not trust.

im not a bush supporter (my sig gives that away ) but for instance from what i understand our economy has improved the last few years which i didnt think was going to happen under bush. which from the little i know about economics though our budget is completly out of whack and our trade deficits are at a all time high. but i dont really know how that will affect us in the long run. and from what i know the budget has been effected by Katrina and her mean friends and the mentioned above war.

anyways i guess overall bigtexx and TJ im not sure what i would do as far as guidelines as far as when to leave and in the past or the present what i would consider victory and if it was attainable. but would you say that it was worth us going over there now? and what do you think have been the postives that have come from the war and the negatives?

 

WOW!!! What a radioactive thread! I rarely venture into D&D and, after reading the posts here, I'll continue that habit.

To the Bush-lovers: Why can't you stick to the issue in question instead of attacking the character of those who disagree with you? Buckley wrote an article 15-20 years ago that was true then but is totally false now. He said if you disagreed with liberals, they would call you names and attack your character. If you disagreed with conservatives, they would just call you dense and at least respect your right to disagree with them. In those days, conservatives (IMO) had a higher ground. Obviously that is no longer true now because attacking the character and patriotism of others is the constant refrain of right-wingers.

Dear Bush-lovers, please leave the venom out and tell me is Buckley right or wrong? If you think he is wrong, why? Intelligent arguments instead of polemics would be appreciated. I supported the war strongly initially but it's been obvious for a while it was a mistake.

 

I find the word invade to be "off the mark."

in·vade ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-vd)
v. in·vad·ed, in·vad·ing, in·vades
v. tr.

1. To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage.
2. To encroach or intrude on; violate: “The principal of the trusts could not be invaded without trustee approval” (Barbara Goldsmith).
3. To overrun as if by invading; infest: “About 1917 the shipworm invaded the harbor of San Francisco” (Rachel Carson).
4. To enter and permeate, especially harmfully.

 

Come on, giddy... you're kidding, right? Please tell me you're kidding. When one sovereign country attacks another, and then enters said country by force of arms, with said country attempting to defend itself, and then occupies said country, you're going to seriously attempt to argue that it wasn't an invasion?

You're kidding, right??



Keep D&D Civil.

 

You read the Buckley then the blog and the conversations that followed and your complaint, all you have to say, is that someone's using the wrong word? Weak.

 

Batman, what kills me, and I like giddy a lot (we have much in common, except for politics), is that it's not the wrong word. If the word has any meaning at all, it applies to the invasion and occupation of Iraq.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

I know it's not the wrong word. But given all the other arguments in this thread and given the fact that the godfather of conservative politics has now joined the ranks of war opponents, semantics seems a stupid thing to get bogged down in. That's what kills me.

 

Oh, it's killin' me as well. I had hoped that conservatives might have an honest discussion about what Bill Buckley said, which is pretty stunning, coming from him. I'm still waiting for that to happen. The response from Trader_J and texxx was completely predictable (I don't know why you let them get to you... you are being stalked with the intent to get you so pissed off that you'll get yourself booted. Why one or both of them haven't been booted already must be because of... beats me. Someone higher up must like them. ), but I was hoping that someone of Buckley's stature might spur the conservatives here to have some sort of dialogue about what is happening to Iraq and it's people, the basis for the invasion and occupation (whatever it is this week), and what to do now, based on the failure of Bush foreign policy and objectives in the theatre. And other stuff that could be discussed about what Bush said we were doing, what was done, what didn't work, what isn't working, and what do we do now. (and a host of other things related to the war, such as it's impact on how America is percieved around the world today, as opposed to that perception in the aftermath of 9/11 and the successful invasion of Afghanistan, or whatever giddy wants to call it)



Keep D&D Civil.

 

Deckard, if I get banned that's fine. If the price for posting in this forum is to politely (or civilly) accept being accused of supporting terrorists and taking pleasure in Americans dying -- not once but for years -- it's not worth it. Why they haven't been banned for saying that stuff I have no idea. Apparently, they haven't even been warned about it or they probably would have stopped. But if the mods decide to ban me for being pissed about it, whatever.

 

Oh right, I'm trying to bait you, Batman. Riiiiight. If you notice, you started this little fracas by coming after me with insults like "you are a crazy person" and "you d*ick". But I'm the one baiting you. Riiiiiight. Zero cred.

 

I called you a dick for once again suggesting that I celebrated the deaths of Americans and Iraqis. That is a dickish thing to say and you say it constantly so don't act surprised when I call you a dick for saying it. Not to mention that in the vast majority of your posts over the last year you've referred to anyone that disagrees with you as a "pig." You brag about pissing people off all the time so don't act innocent.

More to Deckard or whomever: I won't apologize for getting pissed about that kind of constant slander, but I will apologize for getting sucked into responding to Jorge. I'll try now, again, to cut that out.