The guys over at Strategypage.com posted a very good list of the 10 most common claims made by the “Vast-Left Wing-Conspiracy” regarding the War in Iraq and the truth regarding these claims.
They also have some really cool photos in their database…
January 28, 2007: Top 10 Myths of the Iraq War. In no particular order. There are more, but ten is a manageable number.
1-No Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).
2-The 2003 Invasion was Illegal.
3-Sanctions were working.
4-Overthrowing Saddam Only Helped Iran.
5-The Invasion Was a Failure.
6-The Invasion Helped Al Qaeda.
7-Iraq Is In A State of Civil War.
8-Iraqis Were Better Off Under Saddam.
9-The Iraq War Caused Islamic Terrorism to Increase in Europe.
10- The War in Iraq is Lost.
Click on link to find out what is really happening:
http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/topten/articles/20070128.aspx
15 comments:
Failing to accept reality, does not mean it doesn't exist.
Iraq is a disaster.
Failing to deal with reality doesn't mean it will go away either.
(that can apply to Pre or Post war Iraq)
Bill clinton and the "Majority" party failed to deal with terrorism all 8 years he was the big man.
Reality is that we must deal with terrorism and that is what we are doing. This will go on for DECADES not just months and a pull out would be devastating.
Here in Virginia we have Senator Jim Webb who continues to call for a "Redeployment" but will not say what that is. He wants the surrounding countries to be part of the healing process... Those are the guys Hussein was fighting with! They will take over Iraq in a minute if we leave. Get Real!!!
So I suppose the terrorists, and various other enemies, have tremendous power over us. They are the ones dictating how we "deal" with them. They want to fight, so we will fight. We apparently are powerless and are reactionary, rather than proactive. Let's keep digging this hole, because it's been working out so well for everyone involved. Mission Accomplished! Bring em on!
Wonder if anyone is willing to answer the question of who armed Hussein in the first place?
Why are we fighting a proxy war for our Best Friends Forever, the Saudis? One would think they have an interest in the region. Wonder how much it costs to buy the US military to fight it's wars?
ZEN !
OMG!
you said "Proactive"
Isn't that what we are doing? Isn't that what we did?
I have been an advocate of using total destruction to deal with the terrorists/insurgents for quite a while now. But, people don't have the stomach to deal with the fact that war is a nasty, destructive, indiscriminate source of death. We have been "Brainwashed" by smartweapons and pinpoint strikes to have them mental capacity to deal with the fact that these people have to be killed in a rapid and violent fashion.
Reactive doesn't work in reality. But Proactive gets you killed in the media.
....Proactive......
There may be hope for you afterall.
OOPS....
The brainwashing has eliminated our capacity to deal with the reality of what must be done. (In regards to the smartweapons and pinpoint strikes making war too "clean")
my typing needs proactive measures too.....
Oh and Zen..........
still looking for you to dispute the 10 myths from the link.....
Good link Rightside.
I thougt "Progressives" were "Proactive"???
1-No Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).
Do you know something that the defense department doesn't? I hope you are not talking about those rusted shells that even the Defense Dept deny comprise WMDs.
2-The 2003 Invasion was Illegal.
I'm sure this has something to do with the UN. Which is it today, are you in favor of the UN or not? If the UN did not matter then why did Bush and Powell try to get it's blessing? If the UN does matter then how can acting outside of it be justified?
Since Israel has broken numerous rulings of the UN, shouldn't they be invaded?
3-Sanctions were working.
"Working" seems the operable word here. Valid arguments for both sides of that. Is the war "working?"
Give me a small break please...For years the Iraqis were poor and oppressed, even treated harshly by Saddam—and we knew about it, even supported his regime! To try and spin the invasion as a way to "help those poor Iraqi people" is dishonest and denies that we only operate out of self-interest.
4-Overthrowing Saddam Only Helped Iran.
Hard-liner Iranians have much more leverage now than they had before there was a power vacuum, or US occupation. It's also tremendously served as a huge set-back to reformers within the nation. It's hurt the US ability to deal with the Iranians we'd prefer to deal with.
5-The Invasion Was a Failure.
The "invasion" has never been debated as a success or failure, but it's quite clear that the post-invasion has been a calamity.
6-The Invasion Helped Al Qaeda.
Again, semantics. "Invasion," perhaps not. Lack of plan to keep peace, has absolutely strengthened terrorist groups. Go read the NIE.
7-Iraq Is In A State of Civil War.
Again if you want to debate semantics then calling the war of the states in the US a "civil war" fits the definition even less. But in Iraq you have two groups fighting for control of a central govt—a civil war. The US, IRA, ETA are all seperatist groups that aim to break away from a central govt. More accurately they should be considered "wars for independence."
8-Iraqis Were Better Off Under Saddam.
He was able to maintain a certain level of order. The US, and Iraq security forces certainly cannot. There's something to be said for stability.
The US certainly seems to have been "better off" with Saddam in power.
9-The Iraq War Caused Islamic Terrorism to Increase in Europe.
Maybe. Again read the NIE, global terrorism is worse now than it was before going into Iraq. Radicals are emboldened worldwide.
10- The War in Iraq is Lost.
Who thinks that adding 20,000 troops means we are "winning?" Who thinks that after nearly 5 years, as the situation continues to deteriorate, not improve, we are heading toward success?
It was lost when the Bush decided to ignore the experts about what to expect, and how to prepare. He continues to do so, thus we trend toward failure.
I find it pretty telling what wasn't listed among those "myths."
—That inspections were not working.
We know they were, and could have been made even more heavy-handed.
—That Saddam's action of prior use of chemical weapons was done with the full knowledge and even cooperation of the US.
Ask Rummy and Reagan about this one. We know that deam men tell no tales, so Saddam's not going to let this fact slip.
Strategy page just put up a link to a blogcast/talk show/audio discussion about this article from the people who wrote it. I have not listened to the whole thing yet, but it is a very interesting discussion.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/strategypage
the file is like 8 megs, hope you have dsl.
Working on it for still dial up here...
So that is why we "Knocked" off Saddamm so fast? Thought it was because of the many thousands he killed over the years...
Why did US policy under Reagan allow, and even enable, Saddam to kill those many thousands over the years? Why decades after these atrocities did the very same neocons suddenly decide that they cared about those Iraqi people that they didn't give a damn about before?
Seriously. What's the answer?
You friend today may not be your friend tomorrow...
Look at your precious President Carter and the Shah of Iran...
So a man that killed thousands of people was our friend. Why don't we ever hear that when the same people demonized Saddam. "He was our friend when he was killing all those Iraqis."
Opps you didn't mean to admit that did you?
Post a Comment