Need help debating conservative friend on Iraq

Here's the exchange so far. I'm particularly interested in refuting his claim that that there's "no hard evidence of corruption, mendacity or even necessarily gross incompetence."

<Barrett> Primarily, people must recognize that Iraq is an absolute catastrophe

<Graham> Why and to what end? Granted it’s a war (bad) and possibly unnecessary (worse) but here we are. Are you suggesting a quick retreat is the best outcome, or perhaps impeachment, new pres and then what?

<Barrett> Bush’s happy-face bubble is literally costing lives, dozens a week. There must be recognition that the situation is rapidly deteriorating – what little good news there may be is swamped by the rising tsunami of terrible news.

<Graham> I would humbly submit that many have been saying this since the first days of the invasion. Just how far can something fall before it’s over? It seems to me that there must be some counter veiling trends that don’t show themselves in the form of headlines very often. I realized, before the invasion, that a stable democratic Iraq would take at least five years. I don’t think many people believe all is peachy. Bush has talked about the difficulties often enough. Most people know this is war and that persistence is necessary to achieve desired outcomes with attendant loss of life. There’s no other way to overthrow a tyranny and the only question becomes whether it is worth the cost under the circumstances. The answer to that question depends a lot on one’s personality and/or political ideology, hence the above questions – I am genuinely curious.

<Barrett> In addition, there must be accountability. “Mistakes were made” doesn’t begin to cover the magnitude of the incompetence, corruption, and mendacity of the mobsters who got us into this horrific situation.

<Graham> For all the investigations there wasn’t any hard evidence of corruption, mendacity or even necessarily gross incompetence. Bush was held accountable in the last election with everything that could be thrown at him and he got more votes than in 2000.

<Barrett> A positive outcome isn’t possible; now we can only choose among a few extremely negative outcomes.

<Graham> Afghanistan belies that point in the sense that similar dire predictions were made that have not come to pass. It is really too soon to judge. I suppose though it depends on your definition of positive, which is why I wanted to know. Does it include a stable democratic Iraq, because I don’t see how that can be ruled out as impossible in a 3 – 5 year time frame? It clearly has far reaching geopolitical implications for the world. Are these bad?

<Barrett> The first step would be to get the deluded leadership who marched us off this cliff out of office, but alas, that ship has sailed.

<Graham> Presumably then the second step would be to fix/mitigate as far as possible the situation in Iraq with “competent” leadership by applying new tactics to a possibly different strategy. What would you propose, your next sentence not withstanding? Would it be OK to pursue current strategy, possibly with different tactics? Is Bush the problem, or the fact that he initiated an “unnecessary” war?

<Barrett> Some problems are insoluble, and I don’t have a solution. At this point, I think we can only bear witness and document the train wreck, and hope that something of the US is salvageable after 2008.

<Graham> Salvageable from what and for what?

He's very articulate and thoughtful until it comes to evidence of wrongdoing and then he discounts all of it with statements like the one you highlighted.

Bernie Kerik-would be one route to go. His failure to train the police force.

Chalabi-There's a treasure trove of info. on this guy.

Bremer's decision to disband the army.

The turning over of Iraqi public and private capital to U.S. firms, and then creating a lawfree zone for unregulated accumulation. You know the names of the firms so does he.

Download for him Gonzalez's hearing on C-span-he'll learn about torture. Then give him the text relevant to torure from the geneva convention.

the soldier who asked ol' rummie about the body armor, but more importantly the follow questions that didn't get reported as heavily-such as stop loss orders and such. Most of this confirms Kerry's position on the war.

If he is afraid to pull out of Iraq and calls it a retreat. I would remind him that Iraq is the birthplace of civilization and that they are a country of engineers, businessmen, professors, etc. and can handle these things with a bit of an economic push from "we who destroyed all of what they used to have." His assertion that we are needed to do and oversee all of the rebuilding is a faulty one that ignores what I stated above.

I'm sure others are working up a list as well.

Read these two articles, they will give you all the ammo you need.

The Fifty-first State?

Blind Into Baghdad

And this will prepare you for the inevitable Iran invasion debate:

Will Iran be Next?

They are long articles, but essential reading if you want to seriously debate your retarded 'friend'.

is the former CEO and STILL pays him a salary, and Bechtel, the Board of which B*sh sat on for a few years?

How can that not scream racketeering, bribery, corruption, kickbacks, pandering, etc. etc.???????????????? :shrug:

the country is actually a mess. Regardless of the "election" (so-called) in that country, warlords still hold sway, the Taliban still hold power in places, the opium poppy crop is thriving more than it was before the Taliban took power to begin with. Afghanistan is hardly a paragon of success.

He's building his optimisitc argument for Iraq on the "good" situation there. The most recent I've found is a story by Hersh in April, 2004.

There have been reports re: the poppy production, etc.

There's a reason there isn't a lot of reporting regarding it. They'd rather people didn't pay too much attention.

of Saddam Hussein as being a threat to you? Once a week, daily, monthly? Today, how often do you think of a non-democratic Iraq as being a threat to you?

Just b/c George Bush has been souch a lousy leader in this war or any war does not mean that others are not more competent.

You're focusing on the situation on the ground, Barrett. Your correspondent is focusing on pie in the sky. "People are being killed, and it's horrific, yes, says your friend, but next year or five years or ten years from now, this huge pile of manure might produce a big field of pretty flowers. Then it will all be worth it, right?"

He rather blithely ignores the present horror for some incalculable and chimerical future possibility, apparently persuaded that it will all come out right in the end. Any setbacks or atrocities that occur in the meantime are lamentable, but just think of what a wonderful outcome might still happen.

As long as he's focused on some indeterminate positive outcome at some indefinite time in the far future, there's no way to pin him down. One of the questions that we failed to demand and answer for was in the beginning, "What level of death and destruction makes this bit of imperial adventurism unwise or not worth it?" Some people said 500 deaths, and a lot of people said it would take 1,000 dead Americans to make it not worth it.

We're over 1,300 now, but the relentless salesmanship of the corrupt Bush administration has persuaded a number of people to forget what they said yesterday and keep running toward the horizon, where a bright, shining democratic Iraq gleams in the distance. You can tell them that they'll never reach that horizon. "You lie," they hiss, and run on.

Thanks for this, g.