Hezbollah,Iran,uranium.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Given this administrations refusal to look at evidence contrary to their prophecies I would suggest that Israelis defeat at the hands of Hezbollah has gained the US nothing. Just as our defeat in Iraq has gained us nothing.

 

I'd be hesitant to gauge either of those situations a "defeat" just yet.

 

Israel's execution of it's conflict with Hezbollah left something to be desired - but it's difficult to gauge it a military defeat. As a public relations battle, Hezbollah may have been the clear winner, but from a "killing people and breaking things" stand point, it's tough to judge it that way.

 

Similarly in Iraq - we've accomplished SOME, we just haven't accomplished ALL in a timely or effective manner.

 

Yes, Iraq is a big, putrid mess right now, and yes, it's largely our fault, but I don't think the situation is utterly unsalvageable.

 

In any case the point being that "defeat" and "haven't won yet" are not the same thing, especially when the conditions for victory are as murky as they are in the War on Terror.

 

TFS

[damn, I sound like a regular Republican don't I?]

[sebbysteiny]

As a public relations battle, Hezbollah may have been the clear winner, but from a "killing people and breaking things" stand point, it's tough to judge it that way.

 

The goal of a conflict is not to kill and break things, these are means to the end.

Then, pray, what IS the goal? It's funny to me to hear of Israel's military defeat as if Israel has run out of either willingness too fight or military fire power when they are still occupying large chunks of Southern Lebanon.

 

Similarly in Iraq - we've accomplished SOME,

What has been accomplished in Iraq? These accomplishments are lies and illusions perpetrated by the Bushies. The "free and fairly elected" government is as fractured and powerless as the rest of the country. The oil does not flow. The economy is in tatters, fuel prices are impossible high. There are no functioning Iraqi military units. People are being shot by men in police uniforms. What are these accomplishments you speak of?

 

TheFaithfulStone (TFS) said that the Coallition of the willing has accomplished some positive successes. It is implied within that statement (and he later explicitely stated) that the Coallition has also had some negative failures.

 

Demonstrating negitive failures as you have done does not do anything to undermine TFS's statement that there have been positive successes. To actually deal with TFS's statement you would need to demonstrate that the positive successes TFS is talking about are imaginary. I find it highly unlikely you will be able to do that.

 

Yes, Iraq is a big, putrid mess right now, and yes, it's largely our fault, but I don't think the situation is utterly unsalvageable.

I agree. The first thing that must happen is the impeachment of Bush and prosecution of his entire administration. Iraq must then be partitioned into three separate countries. This may qualify as salvage it certainly will not have been worth the war.

 

Firstly, how will 'impeaching' Bush help convince As Quaeda to stop slaughtering innocent shia Muslims? If anything, it will harden their attitudes.

 

Secondly, on what charges do you intend to impeach Bush? He certainly has not broken the law, either domestic or international (regarding the war in Iraq). At worst, he is guilty of making an political decision that is unpopular either with his domestic audience or with the Arab audiance (who I have never seen congratulate America for positive acts anyway). But as the American President, he has every right to make political decisions howsoever popular.

 

Your three state solution is not without merrit. However, who gets the oil resources especially considering there are no oil resourses on lands populated by [non Kurdish] sunis.

 

The attacks on Israel occur all the time. This time Israel reacted differently. You noticed that they were willing to submit to a cease-fire even though they did not have the kidnapped soldiers they said they would get back. This suggests that the particular attack by Hezbollah was not the real trigger for the Israeli invasion.

 

Perhaps you have not heard this theory yet. When the Bush administration goes after Iran it is believed that Hezbollah will retaliate by stepping up their attacks on Israel. This was a preemptive move planned by the US and executed by the IDF to crush Hezbollah before the US attack on Iran.

 

This action may have been a test run for the technology, strategy and tactics to be used by the USA against a force that most likely is very similar to the one that will be faced in Iran.

 

If we consider this perspective the question must then be what has the US gained by the timing of this escalation?

 

Given this administrations refusal to look at evidence contrary to their prophecies I would suggest that Israelis defeat at the hands of Hezbollah has gained the US nothing. Just as our defeat in Iraq has gained us nothing.

 

This seems to me to be a baseless conspiracy theory unsupported by any evidence whatsoever whose sole purpose is to demonise those that disagree with you.

 

Of particular interest is the implied suggestion that only a power hungry greedy lying leader following his own twisted agenda could ever support Israel.

 

Please provide evidence of conspiracy.

 

Baseless rubish like that may be accepted amongst the Arab world without question, but it certainly will not be accepted here.

 

But don't let this one blemish distract you from this forum. I have noticed you have made some excellent contributions.

[Igby]

Secondly, on what charges do you intend to impeach Bush? He certainly has not broken the law, either domestic or international (regarding the war in Iraq). At worst, he is guilty of making an political decision that is unpopular either with his domestic audience or with the Arab audiance (who I have never seen congratulate America for positive acts anyway). But as the American President, he has every right to make political decisions howsoever popular.

Clinton was impeached for lying under oath and obstructing justice, and his crime was far less serious than Bush's. Bush lied in his State of the Union address about Saddam Hussein seeking uranium from Africa, when he'd been told by the CIA that the evidence for it was bogus.

 

He wilfully misled Congress and US citizens about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which Rumsfeld said were in the, uh, general vicinity of Baghdad. He said they knew exactly where they were. Rumsfeld later went on to deny he'd ever said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Maybe Georges Sada is telling the truth, and the weapons were moved to Syria six weeks before the invasion of Iraq. That seems extremely unlikely to me, but stranger things have happened.

 

The Bush administration planned to invade Iraq in March 2003 as early as December 2002. But yet Bush repeatedly stated on the record in the weeks leading up to the war that it was "up to Saddam" whether or not the US invaded. Hmmm.

 

Then there's the linking of Hussein's regime to 9/11. Bogus. Bush admitted it was bogus later. By invading Iraq under false pretenses, the administration, I think, committed fraud. That's impeachable.

 

The torture of prisoners is another impeachable offense. Bush refuses to admit that torture of terrorist suspects goes on in places like Guantanamo Bay and other CIA secret prisons, which he admitted did exist. Torture of inmates violates the UN Torture Convention, Federal Torture Act and Geneva Convention. It's interesting that only last week Bush said that terrorist suspects being held in secret prisons will be given full rights under the Geneva Convention and sent to Guantanamo to be tried for war crimes. What has been happening to the people being interrogated up until now, who did not have "full human rights" as decreed by the Bush administration? I doubt they'd have been handled with respect and care.

 

The decision in favour of Hamdan by the SCOTUS basically showed that the GOP's claim to having special powers at a time of war were crap. The illegal wiretaps, holding prisoners without charge, deporting people without hearings, and setting up special military commissions which violate existing federal laws can't be justified by saying "we're at war, therefore we have more power over basic human rights". A government is beholden to its constituents; it is required to uphold a social contract, and the Bush administration, by lying to the American people and Congress, with-holding information about the war and human rights cut backs, assuming it has the power to spy on citizens, and torturing people in the name of America, is not upholding its end of the contract. The administration is so inept, ignorant and negligent that it deserves to be impeached.

 

But, of course, Bush will not be impeached. The Republican majorities in Congress and the convenient "we had dodgy intelligence" excuses will allow Bush to gracefully end his presidency with little more than very loud "boo"s. Clinton dug his own grave when he went on the record and said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Bush has the luxury of blame-able underlings.

[Zythryn]

Bush has mislead the American people.

Implications have been made which were, in hindsight, lies and manipulation.

Now a days lies and manipulation are called 'spin'. You will see it in virtually every political ad on TV and it is not impeachable (yet).

The mistake Clinton made which Bush has yet to make is he lied in a court of justice.

 

It is a technicality and I believe Bush's lies are far worse than any Clinton made. However those are the rules of the game.