Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 98): How does naval gazing at how the US got into Iraq save lives?

But that's exactly the problem. Who designated you (or, the US) to save the Iraqi lives? There were civilizations in the Middle East way before 1492. Do you think that the US administration is interested in helping the Iraqis, or as you say, saving lives? Are you that naive? I appreciate that you want to save lives, but be sure that your government (and many others, if not all) do things for interests, and not to do good deeds. What those interests were, I leave up to you to research.

If you're that worried about saving lives, you can join a humanitarian mission in Iraq!

Kay

Quoting Kay (Reply 100): Who designated you (or, the US) to save the Iraqi lives?

Quoting Kay (Reply 100): If you're that worried about saving lives, you can join a humanitarian mission in Iraq!

Very clearly you show you have no idea what I'm talking about.

We are told in the media and by Democrats that our presence in Iraq is the problem. That US Troops in Iraq are the problem. I have accepted this premise.

If US Troops are the reason there is violence in Iraq, and the Troop surge is doing nothing but cause more violence than pulling out of Iraq will lessen the violence. You follow me I don't want you to get lost here.

If fewer troops means less violence than NO US troops means no violence and no violence means lives will be saved.

I'm sorry that this logic is lost on you. But it's the same argument that we've been hearing for 4 years. Why you don't get it when I agree with it is not my problem.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 101): That US Troops in Iraq are the problem. I have accepted this premise. -- If US Troops are the reason there is violence in Iraq, and the Troop surge is doing nothing but cause more violence than pulling out of Iraq will lessen the violence. You follow me I don't want you to get lost here.

-
Quite correct. The occupation is hated. It is the occupation which is infuriating people. When the US troops will be out, a main subject of mis-feeling will be out. It in reality only can get better.
-

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 99): the USA dissolved the armed forces who before had controlled the country

The Iraqi Army ? This assumes that the Army was not in a state of complete collapse. Are you saying that the Army still had any type of central command structure that would have assisted with security. I do not , The coalition sought to establish a "new" army under control of the central government.

Quoting Kay (Reply 97): knowledge the back of a Kellog cornflakes box.

Sorry to disappoint you Kay but the Kellog box readers in the US would settle to Nuke Iraq, Iran , NK and anyone who "deserve" it.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 103): Sorry to disappoint you Kay but the Kellog box readers in the US would settle to Nuke Iraq, Iran , NK and anyone who "deserve" it.

What an absolutely pathetic and shamefull comment. I wonder what you would think if someone said the same thing about the US (prime example iran).

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 103): The Iraqi Army ? This assumes that the Army was not in a state of complete collapse. Are you saying that the Army still had any type of central command structure that would have assisted with security.

-
No, it was NOT in a state of total collapse. The central command structure was still intact. Most of the generals however kept their troops back. The invasion showed how minimal Saddam's standing was with the military leaders.
-

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 103): The coalition sought to establish a "new" army under control of the central government.

That so-called "new army" is a joke. It is NOT more than an auxiliary force to the occupation forces, without artillery, airforce, etc. Some tanks, yes. And full of not really well educated commanders, while the "old" army had a corps educated in military academies in Russia and France. It looks as if much of the old army in a way still is existing "underground" with a lot of hidden weaponry at hand, so that there after the US withdrawal may be a credible force again fairly swiftly.
-

I suggest to all people who speak German to read this Article , it´s really good :

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,479108,00.html

Here in English , Translated with "google translate"

Ami, don't go home! Of Yassin Musharbash The US democrats demand a departure of the US army from the Iraq until April 2008 - would be which under the dominant circumstances the prescription for a disaster. This plan is not suitable times as an argument. Instead the US army must become better. Berlin - Mr. Keuner met Mr. Wirr, the fighter against the newspapers. “I am not a large opponent of the newspapers”, said Mr. Wirr, “I want newspapers.” Mr. Keuner said: “I am a larger opponent of the newspapers: I want other newspapers.” Iraqi, US soldier: Save, which is to be saved REUTERS Iraqi, US soldier: Save, which is to be saved Admitted, one can compare the US army not simply with a newspaper. Nevertheless the straight opponents of the US invasion and the critics of US practice should take themselves a model at the reaction of the Mr. Keuner in the Iraq in this breaking history. No US army is not at present the solution for the Iraq - but a better. , More meaningfully acts. In no case however one, which away-runs and which leaves itself to country. Surely, the forced departure as a humiliated army would be a triumph for all, which want to prove to the USA and George W. Bush that they frittered away. (As if would be still necessary.) however it would have consequences, which the present tragedy afterwards probably like a pale play appear would let. Nobody can want that, also the largest USA Hater not. Because more the image of the USA stands on the play than. If the USA would actually take off, because a DEAD LINE plans this and because the conditions in the Iraq do not permit it - which would then happen? As the first everyone would literally lodge a complaint in the Iraq the merit/service for it: of prime minister Nuri aluminium-Maliki over the Schiitenprayer Muktada as addr and the Iraqi insurgent ones up to the Iraqi Qaida branch. And then everyone would continue as before, because this triumphale event justifies the hit way. The presence of the USA is momentarily the smaller evil Did the Iraq become thereby democratic, peaceful, safe, more united? No. On the contrary. Because the US army still serves for all problems, which their operational readiness level creates, also as buffer. Differently said: In the situation, into which they brought the Iraq, the presence of the USA is momentarily still the smaller evil. Unhindered by US soldiers it would fall militant ones of all sides much more easily to slaughter each other. The civil war would escalate probably completely. And without pressure of the USA aluminium-Malikis government would leave the Shiite militant one still more free space for acts of revenge against Sunnite . The vacuum, which the US departure would leave to the wrong time, was filled immediately by neighbor states, which only causes sincere motives has. Saudi Arabia does not have interest to see developing a Shiite dominated Iraq which leans against the ore competitor Iran. It would therefore support the Sunni groups and would destabilize the Iraq thereby. Turkey would feel probably finally so far unobserved, in order to torpedoing in the north Iraq the separate ion attempts of the Kurds - that could lead to a new front. In addition not to exclude it is that within a short time a Shiite dictatorship develops light in the Iraq. Because who would stop such a process? The only winner would possibly be: Iran. Yes, the Iraq war was an error. But a rushed into departure does not make it again good and actually is no absolute value. Only consistent damage delimitation helps now, and that means: Remain, until the Iraq can stand on own feet. Too few fingers and no repairing things Unfortunately the prescriptions used at present are not successful. For the moment the US army acts like someone, which does not have enough finger, over all the holes , from which air escapes. But is still worse: It does not have repairing things. Here policy the CHANGE would have to set - other prescriptions must be tried out. The US army must become better in the Iraq, as Mr. Keuner it by the newspapers wishes itself. And is called better for example: into the civil war to pull in do not leave themselves, as it threatens now, if walls are actually pulled around of Bagdad quarters. This plan may first sound plausible, can however fast as trap even built emerge. The plan plans that US soldiers at fastened checkpoints control entrances and exits. They will be natural the first goal of militant ones. And the US soldiers would react to it “with substantial firepower - which destroys then exactly the areas, which “” become protected, warn” already a US officer according to “Independent”. The USA made heavy errors, which cannot correct them today any longer. The dissolution of the Iraqi army for example to be silent from Abu Ghuraib completely. But the alternative is not called now departure on devil comes out , because otherwise really out comes. Separate save, which is to be saved. “The Americans will not eternally regard thing” For example: With much more expenditure, money and energy than so far the “new” Iraqi army develop and train. And it halftrained in combat do not send, where the soldiers defect then. Or: For that it ensure, that the income from the Iraqi oil fair distribute, in order the Sunnit a economic perspective point out, which itself also for they from the “new Iraq” result can. Or: Less like a brutal crew army specify themselves and make clearer that one would like to help the Iraqis, their worst internal enemies, the terrorists, whom not at all around the Iraq shears itself, to switch off. Or: At the conference of Iraq at the beginning of of May for the fact it ensures that this becomes a success - without this through aggressive Rhetoric exaggerated against Iran directly again in question to place. The “New York Time” - columnist Thomas Friedman praised recently the US democrats for their persisting in a concrete departure date. This pressure makes it possible to the Iraq commander, general Patraeus, to say to the Iraqis: “Nancy Pelosi is totally moved, but it has many trailers. I do not want to knock off, but the Americans will not regard thing here eternally with. I have only a few months.” Case into the total darkness But this rhetorical figure does not get caught, because it is obvious for everyone that it bluff would be. The USA cannot afford it simply to leave a ruined Iraq. Which then the message should be to the Iraqis and the “Arab road”: Sometimes do we fall your leaders, sometimes not, sometimes bombard we you, sometimes not, sometimes promise we you democracy and liberty - it is no matter however actually to us, which happens thereafter with you? There is a simple formula, according to which one can determine, when the time for a US departure is acceptable: The Iraq may not be left in a condition, in which all is worse, than it would have come also otherwise in the worst case (natural death of Saddam Hussein, internal revolt, far so). That is the Mindeste. If until April 2008 succeeds: Ami, go home! If not: Please stay! Not in the interest of the USA - separate in the interest of Iraq, which did not earn it, which does not hold back it anybody from the case into the total darkness.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 102): When the US troops will be out, a main subject of mis-feeling will be out.

SO NOT TRUE! THe French and British knew in 1920 that the three groups would never get along, THAT is the true problem, three warring groups artificially confined with contrived borders and a made up name for a country that did not exist before 1920.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 101): If fewer troops means less violence than NO US troops means no violence and no violence means lives will be saved.

Why exactly do you think Saddam found it necessary to rule with such cruelty? You know nothing of what is going on there, and has been since the Ottoman Empire.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 95): You can lecture all day. Regardless of the reasons for going to war, it's legality etc. there is one going on in Iraq.

The war has been over for a long time, what we have is an occupation. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 94): In either way, the Imams will be sent back to the mosques in favour of a division of religion and state.

Total fantasy.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 91): the Sudanese government now wants to talk about having UN troops in the Darfur region, a perfect example that strong diplomacy in the end works

Thare are far more examples of the opposite.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 91): in the times of President Bill Clinton when the US involvement was done with care and sense, but the world resents the "Rambo-style" involvement of Warmonger Bush

Doing nothing was his specialty, like in Rwanda.

Then he goes into Kosovo withoug UN approval.....sound familiar?

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 88): Outside some particular conflict areas, average non-political people, be they Sunni or Shi'ite or Christian (mostly Secularists anyway) lived normally, could go to work, could go to schools and universities, could drive around, could go shopping, could do business, and women went out without scarves or veils quite freely, people could freely consume beer and wine. While life is miserable now to ALL Iraqis, and even more so for the women

Crumbling infrastructure for the sake of his palaces was leading nowhere. Starving the people by diverting the food for oil was so helpful too.

Quoting LHStarAlliance (Reply 83): Not 120 a day ...

True, the deaths were far more than that.

Quoting Kay (Reply 73): The US didn't go to Iraq to help the Iraqis. Is the number of people who still staunchly believe that at least decreasing? It's all about interests, not about good or bad, and this applies to all sides.

Never considered the fact that helping the Iraqi people is in the US interest, did you?

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 56): We didn't go to war to search for the truth about WMD. We went there because this Adminstration told the world THEY WERE THERE. No if''s, and, or but's about it. Well, they weren't.

There is no proof either way. Just like when that soldier tripped over a vertical stabilizer of a Mig in the desert only to find a small Air Force buried in the sand sealed in plastic, we dont know where he hid his secrets.

Quoting Mrniji (Reply 46): Sometimes it is nice to check legal documents and facts, otherwise the coherence of your argument is impaired.

Confusing UN resolutions with US policy and national interest and placing more importance on the former doesn't help either

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 37): However, despite their vast shortcomings and failures, I saw the greatest progress amongst Iraqi youth. They were far more welcoming, far more willing to cooperate with American forces, far more peaceful and far more optimistic. Perhaps after decades of brutal rule and oppression, the adults no longer know how to be optimistic. Yet the children - free of much of that terror, and eyes opened to a more receptive world - may hold the key for a peaceful Iraqi future.

Funny how no one wants to hear that......and sad

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 33): Quoting LHStarAlliance (Reply 31): But the real reason was , the oil What about WMDs?

Funny how people feel compelled to oversimplify a complex issue.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 30): Unfortunately, Iraq has NOT reached the level of violence and destruction that Japan and Germany went thru after WWII. There were several times were tens of thousands died during a single raid. Many cities were left in complete and utter ruin. Millions, not hundreds of thousands, of their citizens died.

Sometimes I wonder if anyone knows anything furhtur back in history than tha last Idol vote.

Quoting N174UA (Reply 29): Everyone that mattered saw the same exact evidence. We partially relied on foreign intelligence, so it's not just the U.S. that screwed up. We deserve some blame, but not all. Saddam was toying with the UN, and if he truly didn't have WMD like he kept saying , then all he had to do was simply to let the inspectors in and prove him right, and the rest of the world (and especially GWB), wrong. But no...he made his own stupid decision.

Exactly, but why place blame on the person who had the power to prevent the whole thing and stay in power by simply prooving what he claimed?   

Quoting LHStarAlliance (Reply 19): false , the Iraqis had a better live with Saddam hard to say but it´s the true ...

The latest poll disputes that, two thirds say life is better now than before, and they also say that this extremely violent period was expected and will be temporary, and is the result of repressed anger and vendettas that have been festering for decades.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 78): Source please. I want to know how you KNOW the US knew there were no WMD.

You're missing the point. No one knew anything with 100% certainty. But the Bush Administration pushed the argument that there were WMDs in Iraq on evidence that it KNEW was questionable at best, bogus at worst -- yet it had Colin Powell put the case forward at the UN as though it were open and shut. That's what most people have a very hard time forgiving, especially in the wake of the absolute catastrophe that has followed. Source? There are so many now that there's little point in regurgitating them all. Do some reading.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 78): AS I mentioned an no one seems to want to answer The Rest of the Security Council was asking the US and Britain to give inspections MORE TIME. If Hans Blix KNEW there were no WMD why did he need more time? If France Knew there were no WMD why ask for more time for inspections?

Because they wanted to prove their case, to the best extent possible, with more definitive information. They thought a few more inspections might do that. Surely that's a reasonable argument when you are on the verge of a decision to launch a war and kill thousands of people.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 78): Hans Blix is doing a classic CYA, revising history to fit his actions with what we now know. But for the Invasion he'd still be in Iraq looking in the desert for nothing, asking for more time.

It's quite clear that no conclusion from Blix, or anyone else, to the effect that there is no evidence of WMDs
would have ever convinced Bush/Cheney not to invade. They made that decision on their gut feeling, and weren't prepared to back down when they couldn't build a case. Bottom line is, Blix was right and Bush/Cheney were wrong, and tens of thousands of people are dead as a consequence. There's nothing revisionist about that.



[

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 101): If fewer troops means less violence than NO US troops means no violence and no violence means lives will be saved.

I'm not questionning that we agree totally on the next course of action. It's the rest, understanding why they're there, what they wanted, how it happened, etc etc, that is what I am talking about here, big time. Maybe all this thread helped change the misconceptions you had at the start of the thread, maybe it didn't, doesn't really matter but was worth the try because it was definitely the highlight of that first post imho.

Kay

Quoting LHStarAlliance (Reply 106): to read this Article

interesting observations, opinions and ideas, BUT of his conditions for a "better" US Army, almost NONE will be met at any time, so that the withdrawal will be the only way. The USA in the past withdrew from Lebanon, Somalia and Vietnam, so that it will NOT be something really new.
-

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 107): three warring groups artificially

2 groups, Arabs and Kurds. Shi'ites and Sunnis shared to Green Crescent (Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine for centuries. There WERE conflicts in the area, some of them denomination-wise but mostly otherwise.
-

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 107): Why exactly do you think Saddam found it necessary to rule with such cruelty? You know nothing of what is going on there, and has been since the Ottoman Empire.

Neither the Kings between 1920 and 1958, nor Presidents Abdul-Qarim Kassem, Adel-Salam Aref, Abdur-Rahman Aref, Ahmed Hassan el-Bakr ruled in the cruel way of Saddam. One reason of course was that he in contrast to his presidential predecessors was NOT a military man and not an officer, and so ruled through the secret service. He was a member of the Ba'ath Party but never the party-leader and so also in that case only dominated via the ruthless application of secret service methods .
-

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 107): In either way, the Imams will be sent back to the mosques in favour of a division of religion and state. Total fantasy.

-
That "fantasy" was reality between 1920 and 2003.
-

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 107): Then he goes into Kosovo withoug UN approval.....sound familiar?

-
But WITH the approval of most Europeans, the NATO, and the Arab World. It was based on a careful coalition of interests, so that only the pro-Serbian East European countries opposed.

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 107): saw the greatest progress amongst Iraqi youth ........... eyes opened to a more receptive world - may hold the key for a peaceful Iraqi future.

-
THIS is a very important aspect. The Youth are ready to look at matters objectively and without prejudice. And possibly more than their parents realized that those US-Americans are people just like themselves, and NOT some kind of sinister "aliens". For their sake, I hope that the whole mess does NOT go on for endless 20 months, but will get solved in one way or the other as shortly as possible.
-

Quoting Emirates773ER (Reply 104): What an absolutely pathetic and shamefull comment. I wonder what you would think if someone said the same thing about the US (prime example iran).

This is not my opinion Emirates , it was intended to show the differnce between those who truly dont know and those who argue for stability and peace in Iraq. Kay's comments suggested that UALPHLCS had limited understanding and compared him to a ceral box reader. Those in the US who are willing to sacrafice thier own for a better Iraq and those who would just rather Nuke them.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 110): There WERE conflicts in the area, some of them denomination-wise but mostly otherwise.

Are you trying to say that Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites are not killing each other and do not have bad blood?

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 110): But WITH the approval of most Europeans, the NATO, and the Arab World. It was based on a careful coalition of interests, so that only the pro-Serbian East European countries opposed.

Who in the Arab world objected that is not condidered a terrorist state? Nato is irrelevant, and the only ones that opposed Iraq were the ones with the biggest accounts receivable balances, France, Russia, and others. Coincidence?

Ironic that France was in on drawing the Iraqi borders, but was unwilling to deal with the results.

Whether we like it or not, nations can build up a rap sheet that one day comes back to bite them:

Siding with Germany in WWI
Invading Kuwait in 1937
Attacking Israel in 1948
Remaining a threat to Israel
Screwing with us via OPEC
Gassing the Kurds (remember that little promise the allies made about no more genocide?)
Posing a threat to Saudi Arabia and other US freindly Arab nations
Invading Kuwait AGAIN
Playing 3 card monty with WMD
Bombing Israel during the Gulf War
Ignoring UN resolutions
Breaking the cease fire
Shooting at US planes in the no fly zone
FLYING in the no fly zone
State sponsered assasination attempt on Bush 1 in Kuwait
Kicking out the WMD inspectors
Developing missles with longer than allowed ranges

At some point I would think people would clue into the fact that these things add up, and have consequences.

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 107): two thirds say life is better now than before,

Yea sure
  It´s the opposite ...

Quoting LHStarAlliance (Reply 113): Yea sure It´s the opposite ...

So the Iraqi people are liars because they do not agree with you? How arrogant.

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 107): Why exactly do you think Saddam found it necessary to rule with such cruelty?

It was a rhetorical question.

I'm not naive to think there won't be a lot of bloodshed in Iraq if the US leaves. In fact it might concievably get worse. But the US will be out, so can not be blamed for inciting the violence and US Troops can stop getting killed for people who don't want them there.

Quoting Kay (Reply 109): It's the rest, understanding why they're there, what they wanted, how it happened, etc etc, that is what I am talking about here, big time.

That's not the point of this thread however. It's a historical argument with as much merit and debate as wether the American Civil War was caused by Slavery or States Rights. But it has no bearing on the outcome.

I still think we got into this war with the best of intentions. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. So disagree with my reasons for wanting out all you like. It doesn't change what we do to get out.

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 114):

I also heard about this survey and it was : 3/2 said that life was worse than before and 1/3 said the opposite ...

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 111): Kay's comments suggested that UALPHLCS had limited understanding and compared him to a ceral box reader.

Funny expression somehow.  

No offense to anyone btw  
Kay

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 115): But the US will be out, so can not be blamed for inciting the violence and US Troops can stop getting killed for people who don't want them there.

Most do want them there, until Iraq can go it alone, which they clearly cannot at the moment.

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 118): Most do want them there, until Iraq can go it alone, which they clearly cannot at the moment.

According to all the media reports I've seen that isn't the case. And if it is the silent majority you speak of will have to live with the consequences of their silence.

If the Majority of Iraqis had shown some willingness to stop these sectarian killings. Helped to track down the insurgents so they had no place to hide. Told the Police where the garages making car bombs where. Then my patience would not have run out.

I used to take heart that through it all Iraqis still joined the Military and the Police. But since they are only using it to further their sectarian gang goals, even that is a waste of time.

These people have been killing each other since the dawn of civilization. It doesn't matter if they called themselves Hittites, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Sunni, Shia, Kurds.

It WAS arrogant of us to think that we could count on these people to set aside 5000 years of warfare.

So Can we walk away from Iraq. Yes we can and not feel the least bit bad about it. They want to go back and fight ancient gripes with one another, that's their perogative, we shouldn't stand in their way.

LHStarAlliance thinks that life was better under a dictator because he kept the peace through oppression. ME AVN FAN Thinks it was arrogant to think we could impose a democracy, the US had no right to go in and kick over the hornets nest.

What a sad and cynical commentary. In essence what this means is that these people can only be kept apart through brutal suppression. Maybe the administration was naive. But it was naivete that thought the better of the Iraqis than ME AVN FAN and LHStarAlliance. Sadly the Iraqis seem bound and determined to prove them right and piss on the optimism of the administration that thought the Iraqis where past ancient grudges.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 60): The people who brought chaos are the insurgents.

We opened the door for the chaos. We dismantled the entire security appratus, and the borders were not sufficiently closed. We set up the scenario.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 60): That's typically revisionist Falcon84 and you know it.

Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit.

The revisionism is yours-saying we went in to "find out the truth about WMD's". We went in, oestensibly, because President Bush said they had them; Dick Cheney said they had them; Condi Rice said they had them; Colin Powell said they had them.

Read the quotes from them. Then the members can make up their minds who is revising history.

http://zfacts.com/p/581.html

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 60): There is nothing in UN resolution 1441 that say WMD ARE in Iraq.

Again, read the quotes above. It wasn't the UN saying they had weapons. It was the American Adminsitration saying they had them. And isn't it funny the UN resolution says that if Saddam were found to be in violation, it oculd trigger a military response? Convenient, eh?

The reason given-the SOLE reason given before the war was WMD. It was WMD, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. That was the name of the game. It was only AFTER we were there for months, and it was found that the intel was so far off base that the other "reasons" started to crop up: bringing democracy to Iraq; toppling a dictator. You know-the usual shit put out by the Administration and their apologists on this forum and around the nation.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 60): really don't get it Falcon84. So do we stay or do we go? Do we surge or "phased withdrawl? Your so busy blaming Bush and bad intelligence and lies and yada yada from 4 years ago, you can't make up your mind. Pull out or stay in?

Show me where I have EVER said we should pull out. I'm a realist here, UAL. I was against the invasion, but I've always maintained that, once there, we had to make the very best of what we started. I still feel that way. I still feel we owe a debt of honor to those Americans who have died over there, and to the Iraqi people, to try and make the best of the situation. Yet I also don't see the situation improving. If, by years' end, the surge in troop strength isn't paying dividends, I will probably call for us to pull out.

And Mr. Bush? He said the tide is turning: sure it is. 9 GI's died yesterday; the bloodshed in Iraq goes on and on. It isn't turning. It has to turn soon. If it doesn't, the Harry Reid will be right. I don't think he's right quite yet, but I think we're fast approaching that point.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 60): Personally I don't give a $hit anymore about the Iraqis.

I don't think you ever did. This wasn't about Iraq to the apologists on this forum, and around the nation for this Administration. It was about showing balls; it was about acting big and tough after 9/11, and finding an easy target; it was about kicking someone's ass to make you and the Administration feel better about themselves. It was about blind, paranoia-filled support for a wrong-headed policy, and a president that you and many others conservatives on here have a hard time critisizing, no matter what he does.

It was never about the Iraqi's to you. It was about showing who had the biggest gonads to the world. That's what it was about.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 60): Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 56): I don't. I think they went in to 1. Finish off business between Saddam and the Bushes; 2. To win re-election in 2004, based on the war on terror, and blending it, through fear and paranoia, with WMD's in Iraq, and 3. To cement a place for Mr. Bush in the history books. That's all personal opinion.

Gee, no kidding. That's what this forum isn't about, or did you not figure that out till now?  

Quoting TZ757300 (Reply 62): Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 59): After we're the ones who put that nation in the mess they're in now. Its a mess because they want it like that.

No, it's a mess because we opened the gates for it to be like that. And I'd wager most Iraqi's don't want it to be like that. I'd wager most just want to live in peace and security, after 4 decades of war, bloodshed, dictatorship and occupation.

Quoting TZ757300 (Reply 62): We have tried to restore and promote democracy

How can you "restore" what never existed there? It is an entire region where democracy is alien. You cannot restore what was never there. And who the hell are we to "promote" any form of government to anyone?

Quoting TZ757300 (Reply 62): but with all the religious conflicts between Shites and the Shia and the excess terrorism still in the country, our help will hardly be noticed when everything still goes to shits.

You're probably right.

But let me ask you this. It's well known that Iraq, like Yugoslavia before it, was seething with ethnic divisions and hatreds. Not just for a handful of years, but for decades and centuries. And, like Yugoslavia before it, the only thing that kept it from blowing up was the iron fist of a dictator. Tito in Yugo, and Saddam in Iraq.

Wasn't there one person advising the President of the United States that, if you go into Iraq, and cannot keep security in the country, you could end up with a repeat of the carnage that gripped the former Yugoslavia? Didn't one person have the brains or the balls to point out this known fact? Didn't anyone even see this? Or, was the rose-colored glasses that Mr. Bush and his advisors were looking to just too pretty to even consider this fact?

If that's the case, then the "thought" that went into this war was even less than first imagined.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 120): How can you "restore" what never existed there?

Ok, restore is a poor word. Instill is a better one

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 120): And who the hell are we to "promote" any form of government to anyone?

Well, I believe the U.S. has always tried to promote democracy where ever we've been. It may not be our place, but it happens.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 120): Didn't anyone even see this?

Probably, but Bush's minions probably have ignored those facts

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 120): If that's the case, then the "thought" that went into this war was even less than first imagined.

I think thats true.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 96): Funny the act of regime change and the installation of a democratic government is seen as arrogant by the the world. Why is this ?? Seems to me it is the ultimate compliment to the people of Iraq that we see them having the intelligence to elect people who offer them the best future. Our objective is to empower the people of Iraq to guide their own future ! Why would the world not support this ? It would be one thing if we propped up a dictator or assigned a "king". But this is not the case !

Please read the book Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone to understand how the US messed up the Iraq situation. Sending people totally unqualified to rebuild iraq, with the only qualifications being whether they voted republican or not, the mess that paul bremmer created, the overall lack of any thought on how to rebuild a country etc is what brought Iraq to this state today.

some quotes from the reviewers...

Quote: This book was so absorbing that it kept me up past midnight. I had to finish it. It is unique, focusing in a very easy to read way on the terrible errors committed that made Bremer's rule a complete failure. The author documents both the unreality of the Green Zone ("The fear on the faces of American troops was rarely seen by the denizens of the Palace") and the terrible errors that resulted from arrogance, ignorance, and plain bureaucratic in-fighting. The author opens by concluding that most of those serving in the provisional authority simply gave up and went through the motions. He calls them a motley bunch, most qualified by allegiance to the neo-conservative wing of the Republican Party, rather than actually being competent or even relevant. The author makes an informed speculative judgement that fully half of those serving, many callow youths, got their first passport to take the political appointments in Iraq. Great line from one disillusioned staffer: "I'm a neo-conservative who has been mugged by reality." Bremer screwed this up, but it was Dick Cheney who chose him for the job and got General Garner fired. Dick Cheney also personally directed the removal of Tom Warrick, the only person in the US government that actually understood Iraq in all its nuances, from the Garner team, largely to protect Chalabi--a thief and a liar according to CIA and State, a willing accomplice who sucked up to Cheney--and block objections to Chalabi being installed as the leader. The author also reports that Doug Feith kept General Garner ignorant in order to promote Chalabi as the one with the answers. The bottom line within this book comes in four parts: 1) Bureaucratic in-fighting and Pentagon civilian arrogance lost the peace before it even had a chance. 2) Looting destroyed all the ministries while the sanctions destroyed the infrstructure. The US made things worse by insisting on hiring US companies playing by US federal acquisition rules, and ultimately spending 40% of the money on security instead of reconstruction. 3) Bremer single-handedly destroyed any possibilities of peace with his first two decisions--purging the Bathists not only drove 50,000 people, the ones with all the knowledge, underground, it provided the insurgency with its leadership. Dismantling the military and police created an army of insurgents overnight. Finally, in seeking to privatize the Iraqi economy, Bremer and his deputies were in specific violation of international law preventing occupying powers from doing just that. 4) Bremer set aside the inter-agency process (just as Dick Cheney did in Washington) and while the author credits Bremer with zeal, it can safely be concluded that he was the most ignorant, arrogant, destructive pro-consul in modern history. Common sense was killed by the Bremer and his CPA. From Cheney to Rumsfeld to Wolfowitz to Feith to Bremer, there is a clear-cut culpability for destroying what was left of Iraq, for wasting half a trillion dollars, for losing more US troops to combat than were murdered on 9/11, and for creating 65,000 amputees, all for an elective war and a refusal to listen to the wisdom of the truly experienced officers: Tony Zinni of the Marines and Shinseki of the Army. It does bear mention, however, that the success of these four individuals in doing great harm was made possible by the simultaneous failure of three safety valves: the Congress, the press, and our senior military officers, most particularly General Tommy Franks, who was all to eager to do Rumsfeld's bidding, declare victory, and never mind the transition from hostilities to a stablization & reconstruction phase.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 120): I don't think you ever did. This wasn't about Iraq to the apologists on this forum, and around the nation for this Administration. It was about showing balls; it was about acting big and tough after 9/11, and finding an easy target; it was about kicking someone's ass to make you and the Administration feel better about themselves. It was about blind, paranoia-filled support for a wrong-headed policy, and a president that you and many others conservatives on here have a hard time critisizing, no matter what he does.

If only they had spent half their efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan instead of Iraq, OBL would have been captured by now, and al-qaida would have been neutralized. And US did go to war with afghanistan with sufficient proof and had the support and backing of UN and large number of countries. It is an insult those who died on 9/11 that the work in Afghanistan is half-done and US is trying to get NATO to do more while it is bogged down in Iraq.

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 112): There WERE conflicts in the area, some of them denomination-wise but mostly otherwise. -- Are you trying to say that Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites are not killing each other and do not have bad blood?

-
A) I referred to the history of the "Green Crescent" including Iraq, with many Shi'ites from the Gulf to the Med
B) there is a lot of denomination-based killing right now in Iraq, to an unprecedented extent in fact, but a lot
of the violence and bloodshed in Iraq had and has nothing to do with the denominations. Hate between denominations is existing, but there also is love as there are 100'000s of denomination-wise mixed families in Iraq (and elsewhere)
-

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 112): Who in the Arab world objected that is not condidered a terrorist state?

> Virtually all of the Arab World supported/supports the Kosovo-territory and the Kosovaris in their quest for independence.
> The liberation of Kuwait was based on a resolution of the Arab League (with only one objection) calling on one side Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait and on the other side appealing to outside help to the United Kingdom and the USA. Troop contingents from Egypt and Syria in 1991 were part of the big coalition army to liberate Kuwait.
> In 2003, the Arab World supported the French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin in his attempt to stop the impending invasion of Iraq, as people were horrified by the idea of an occupied Iraq, out of principle
-

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 112): Siding with Germany in WWI Invading Kuwait in 1937 Attacking Israel in 1948 Remaining a threat to Israel Screwing with us via OPEC

-- Iraq for a short moment under the revolt-leader al-Djilani sided with Germany in WW-II, but in WW-I did not yet exist and so could NOT side with anybody
-- Kuwait invaded in 1937 ????
-- In 1948, Iraq participated in an Arab attempt to help the Arabs in Palestine against that new UDI based state
-- Israel remained a threat after 1948 , true
-- OPEC did NOT "screw" anybody, but represented the interests of the oil-exporting countries
-
you then get into the reign of Saddam Hussein al-Takriti who indeed was a tyrant and mass-murderer, but who was left in power by the USA in 1991
-

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 120): We opened the door for the chaos. We dismantled the entire security appratus,

We then rebuilt the military and police. The job is done. The troops can come home.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 120): The revisionism is yours-saying we went in to "find out the truth about WMD's". We went in, oestensibly, because President Bush said they had them; Dick Cheney said they had them; Condi Rice said they had them; Colin Powell said they had them.

As did France, and Germany , and Russia, and Israel, and Italy. What you love to gloss over is that the world's intelligence agencies were fooled by Saddam. Then you twist what the mission was. The UN resolutions were for Saddam Hussein to cooperate with the UN inspectors who were trying to determine What WMD Saddam had and where they were. That is the truth they were attempting to uncover and were stymied. The Invasion got those answers. Left up to you we'd still be wondering with bad intelligence.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 120): I don't think you ever did. This wasn't about Iraq to the apologists on this forum, and around the nation for this Administration.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 120): It was never about the Iraqi's to you.

What gives you the right to project on to me. You don't know anything about me. You're just putting me in a stereotypical template you worked out for yourself.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 120): Gee, no kidding.

Yes this is a forum for opinion. Stop passing off your opinions as facts. That's what you attempted to do and I called you on it.


None of the reasons for going into Iraq have any bearing on why we ought to get out. The President stated goals in the beginning, that's his job. By my interpretation the US military has met those goals, and ought to be released from the mission. You can disagree with the stated goals all you want, argue their validity, legality morality til your blue in the face, but they are the ones the President set, now that they are met he can declare victory and we can leave. That is the fundamental idea of this thread which everyone else seems to be dancing around.

Great post Falcon84 (56). Good luck Kay and others trying to convince the believers that the UN did NOT sanction the invasion!!!

Quoting Itsjustme (Reply 34): Quoting JetsGo (Reply 27): Hospitals, schools, markets are all being constructed while technology vastly improving daily. I think a "re-" should prefix the word constructed. Isn't it possible the hospitals, schools, and markets you refer to are being constructed because we bombed them into oblivion in the first place? Or, is it your opinion that, prior to the great and powerful USofA arrived on our white horses, there were no hospitals, schools, or markets in Iraq?

I would love to believe that reconstruction was occurring, but is there any evidence that this is so? I will not run the source cop out, but I really would like to know where you gain this impression. The few reporters who stray outside the Green Zone suggest that pretty much all of services are getting worse. Especially supply of electricity. Mobile phones might be better, but they are hardly the core of life. I understand there are now food shortages. So where does the getting better story come from?

Quoting [email protected] (Reply 82): The reality is that the Bush administration and it's neo-cons over-estimated their strengths and under-estimated the realities and consequences of occupying a fractured and complex country like Iraq.

Quoting N174UA (Reply 29): Everyone that mattered saw the same exact evidence. We partially relied on foreign intelligence, so it's not just the U.S. that screwed up. We deserve some blame, but not all. Saddam was toying with the UN, and if he truly didn't have WMD like he kept saying , then all he had to do was simply to let the inspectors in and prove him right, and the rest of the world (and especially GWB), wrong. But no...he made his own stupid decision.

There is an interesting article in the Sydney Morning Herald for 25 April 2007
http://www.smh.com.au/news/ross-gitt...work/2007/04/24/1177180648141.html

"Why 'never again' will never work
Ross GittinstApril 25, 2007"
Today is ANZAC day the anniversary of another rather pointless invasion, badly carried out and poorly conducted after some initial success, leading ultimately to complete withdrawal.

Gittins is an economist, but writes well. He takes the work of "Professor Daniel Kahneman, of Princeton University, and Jonathan Renshon, of Harvard University, in an article published in the journal Foreign Policy earlier this year.
Kahneman, a psychologist, is a founder of behavioural economics and was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics for his trouble" and observes a number of characteristics that are relevant to wars. Extracted there are three points of relevance.

1. Tendency of hawks to win out over doves. This is linked with a tendency to overestimate one's own abilities. This means that both sides (in this case Bush and Saddam) were likely to overestimate their chance of victory in the case of Bush and the chance of a lack of disastrous defeat in the case of Saddam. Well, both turned out to be wrong there!

2. "Reactive devaluation" The tendency to believe a statement if it comes from "your" side and disbelieve it if it comes from the other. Alas, Blix was deemed to be on the other side.

3. Especially relevant to the issue of withdrawal are the issues of being risk averse compared with loss averse. Most think they are risk averse but are actually loss averse. Ross's provides a neat example of this and the quote from him is followed by his quote of the psychologists conclusions of the results of this tendency:
"In one experiment people are asked to choose between a sure loss of $890 and a 90 per cent chance of losing $1000 with a 10 per cent chance of losing nothing. A large majority of people prefer the second option even though, statistically, it's inferior ([$1000 x .9] + [$0 x .1] = $900).
"When things are going badly in a conflict, the aversion to cutting one's losses, often compounded by wishful thinking, is likely to dominate the calculus of the losing side," the authors say.
"This brew of psychological factors tends to cause conflicts to endure long beyond the point where a reasonable observer would see the outcome as a near-certainty."

It seems likely that the risk, loss equation is playing heavily in Iraq.

In qualitative terms, it is most likely that the occupation forces are more related to the cause of the problems than the solution but the risk/loss equation suggests we will likely get more of the same.

A time plot of deaths in Iraq is currently on the BBC site at:

"Baghdad: Mapping the violence"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/in_depth/baghdad_navigator/

You can see maps of events with more than 10 Iraqi deaths month by month from May 2003 to early 2007. It is a VERY sobering sequence.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 126): Great post Falcon84 (56). Good luck Kay and others trying to convince the believers that the UN did NOT sanction the invasion!!!

I have no doubt that the Invasion was not given a final approval by the Security council.

That doesn't mean:

1) It wasn't the right thing to do.
2) Previous UN resolutions left open the door for the Invasion.

Rehashing this issue to death again doesn't move us forward, now does it?

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 125): As did France, and Germany , and Russia, and Israel, and Italy. What you love to gloss over is that the world's intelligence agencies were fooled by Saddam.

Who told you that? Right - it was "We know he has them!" VP Dick Cheney who told you that all the other governments fully agreed with him but only for evil reasons of their own didn't want to invade Iraq.

In reality (you know, the same realm where 2+2=4), however, the other governments' view was that Saddam might have had WMDs (unlikely, but possible), so the UN inspections should be completed to find out for sure.

So the UN inspections were almost completed, showed that there were no WMDs, the USA invaded anyway, sent in their own inspectors afterwards, found again that there had been no WMDs and the rest is history.

I know that the false belief in that nonexistent consensus about WMDs is the final pillar on which your shaky convictions are resting, but unfortunately it is entirely imaginary - like the conclusions you're drawing from it.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 127): That doesn't mean: 1) It wasn't the right thing to do.

True in principle. But when almost everybody tells you that you're wrong, you better make damn sure that you know better after all - and in this case that has clearly not been the case.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 127): 2) Previous UN resolutions left open the door for the Invasion.

If there had been a resolution which actually authorized the invasion, you would have a point. But since such a resolution had no chance of getting passed, you do not have a point here.

The UNSC clearly did not intend to have Iraq invaded on the information available at the time (which is identical to what we know with hindsight - the information was completely correct back then).

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 127): Rehashing this issue to death again doesn't move us forward, now does it?

Yes and no. It won't resolve the Iraq issue as it is now; But the aggressive insistence that everything was just fine and dandy with the invasion's legitimacy lays the tracks for the next disaster if nothing is learned from the current one.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 129): True in principle. But when almost everybody tells you that you're wrong, you better make damn sure that you know better after all - and in this case that has clearly not been the case.

So it's better to leave a dictator in power?

Even when the WMD was not found, I'm still suspicious that it was completely destroyed and wasn't moved to another country, the morality of removing a dictator was right.

Additionally the invasion gave great incentive for Libya to negotiate. Which was icing on the cake.

Removing a dictator and freeing a people is the right thing to do.

I'm against Left and right wing dictatorships no matter where found. If practicable I think they ought to be removed. But at this point is will never be practicable. The world would rather allow people to be enslaved and killed by tyrants and blame those who want their removal. So I'm prepared to allow the world to reap what it sows.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 129): If there had been a resolution which actually authorized the invasion, you would have a point. But since such a resolution had no chance of getting passed, you do not have a point here.

UN resolution 1441 is what the US and UK hung their hat on. Lawyers and historians can debate the merits of that. But as I said it doesn't point the way out. You're continuing to point backwards, while I'm looking forward on how to leave Iraq.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 129): But the aggressive insistence that everything was just fine and dandy with the invasion's legitimacy lays the tracks for the next disaster if nothing is learned from the current one.

Oh no you completely misunderstand. As I said above, I'm prepared to allow the world to reap what it sows. I think we have learned from the Iraq invasion. The US will continue to protect itself in Afghanistan looking for OBL. But after withdrawling from Iraq, we ought to withdrawl from Kosovo, Bosnia, South Korea. When the world is banging on our door about Somalia, Sudan, North Korea. We ought not get involved. It isn't our problem.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 124): -- Iraq for a short moment under the revolt-leader al-Djilani sided with Germany in WW-II, but in WW-I did not yet exist and so could NOT side with anybody

What is now Iraq did indeed side with Germany which led to the British invading Baghdad in 1917 and Britain (and France with the approval of the League of Nations) redrawing the map of the remnants of the Ottoman Empire.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 124): -- Kuwait invaded in 1937 ????

Yep

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 124): -- In 1948, Iraq participated in an Arab attempt to help the Arabs in Palestine against that new UDI based state

Are you with Hamas or Hezbollah?

Iraq attacked a new nation that was sanctioned by the United Nations and recognised by the allies as a Sovereign state.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 124): -- OPEC did NOT "screw" anybody, but represented the interests of the oil-exporting countries

So the embargo in the 70's was a good thing? Were you alive then?

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 124): you then get into the reign of Saddam Hussein al-Takriti who indeed was a tyrant and mass-murderer, but who was left in power by the USA in 1991 -

Saddam was not 'left in power by the US" the UN mandate was to push Iraq out of Kuwait, we did that, and when Baghdad was considered, the coalition, with Saudi Arabia the loudest, said no. After the road of death, no support for the sacking of Baghdad existed anywhere.

Doesnt all that kool-aid make you want to pee?

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 131): What is now Iraq did indeed side with Germany which led to the British invading Baghdad in 1917 and Britain (and France with the approval of the League of Nations) redrawing the map of the remnants of the Ottoman Empire.

Again, Iraq did NOT exist before 1919, but was 3 provinces of the Turkish Empire. Baghdad was invaded by an Arab-British army under the command of Colonel Lawrence, Emir Abdullah (later Transjordan) and Emir Faisal (later King of Iraq). The reason for the action was that the Brits in the McMahon-Hussein-Agreement had promised to help establish a joint Arab Kingdom on the Arab Peninsula, plus what today are Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan, Syria and Palestine-Israel. Lebanon was EXcluded as being in the French sphere of interests. And the Kingdom of Iraq (1919-1958) NEVER sided with Germany.
-

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 131): So the embargo in the 70's was a good thing? Were you alive then?

I was born in 1950, and so quite well remember the embargo matter, which in fact most of all was launched by Sheikh Zaki el-Yamani, the Saudi oil minister. It was A) a clear gesture of protest against Western politics on Palestine and B) a move which helped the oil-producers to get a fairer share of the profits than in previous times
-

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 132): Again, Iraq did NOT exist before 1919

How can I make it more clear thant "What is now Iraq"?

Are you being dense on purpose to try to make a point?

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 132): I was born in 1950, and so quite well remember the embargo matter, which in fact most of all was launched by Sheikh Zaki el-Yamani, the Saudi oil minister. It was A) a clear gesture of protest against Western politics on Palestine and B) a move which helped the oil-producers to get a fairer share of the profits than in previous times -

You simply do not get it. I give up.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 130): So it's better to leave a dictator in power?

No. But successfully turning a dictatorship into a stable democracy is a lot more complicated than the Bush administration obviously believed.

There are very successful examples like both parts of Germany (from 1945 in the west and from 1989 in the east), but unfortunately Iraq will be one of the prime examples of how it can be screwed up by plain old incompetence.

Unfortunately today we're not just back to square 1, we're actually backwards from where we were with respect to bettering the lives of most of Iraq and the mid-east as a whole.

The post 9-11 unity could have been used to finally begin dealing with dictators hiding behind the traditional non-interference principle, but that chance has been blown all to hell even after the multinational Afghanistan campaign was already in full swing. The Iraq invasion has made any further attempts of pressuring dictators more difficult, not easier.

A tragic mistake, a gigantic chance destroyed by sheer incompetence and hubris.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 130): Even when the WMD was not found, I'm still suspicious that it was completely destroyed and wasn't moved to another country

Outside of the Bush administration and their immediate political supporters nobody sees any evidence for that to have happened in reality. Which usually means it's just wishful thinking to save face.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 130): the morality of removing a dictator was right.

Sure. There has never been dissent about that on principle. But a military invasion is a highly dangerous way to get there. Even when its execution isn't as thoroughly botched by the leadership as this one was.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 130): Additionally the invasion gave great incentive for Libya to negotiate. Which was icing on the cake.

The libyan development goes much farther back than that. It is very easy to just claim it for Bush, but I have severe doubts about such an easy connection beyond coincidence. Today the USA are so visibly weakened by Iraq that there is little if any threat potential left to intimidate anyone.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 130): I'm against Left and right wing dictatorships no matter where found. If practicable I think they ought to be removed. But at this point is will never be practicable. The world would rather allow people to be enslaved and killed by tyrants and blame those who want their removal. So I'm prepared to allow the world to reap what it sows.

You're sounding like a petulant little kid sulking in a corner.

The question is not the decision whether or not to engage the outside world, the question is whether to do it properly or not.

The triumphant and reckless approach by the Bush / Cheney / Rumsfeld / Wolfowitz / Perle neocon cabal was clearly delusional, misguided and flat out incompetent.

This doesn't say much if anything about the capabilities or future options of the USA, other than to avoid making the same mistakes again like the plague!

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 130): UN resolution 1441 is what the US and UK hung their hat on.

Which clearly did not authorize an invasion, as anyone with even passing knowledge about wording and intention of UNSC resolutions will attest (and has done so exhaustively back then).

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 130): You're continuing to point backwards, while I'm looking forward on how to leave Iraq.

Fine with me, as long as the necessary lessons from the past are being learnt and not just ignored.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 130): Oh no you completely misunderstand. As I said above, I'm prepared to allow the world to reap what it sows. I think we have learned from the Iraq invasion.

It looks as if the USA are slowly getting there since the newly democratic-dominated Congress has finally stepped up its dearly necessary oversight which it had thoroughly neglected since before the invasion, but having the courage to face uncomfortable facts will turn out to be the real heroism ordinary civilians are being asked for.

And yes, that applies to every side on the issue.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 130): The US will continue to protect itself in Afghanistan looking for OBL.

OBL is next to irrelevant beyond a photo-op. Terrorism is a much more complex problem as the allies have tried to explain for years.

And just in case you've forgotten: Afghanistan has been started as and still is a joint campaign between multiple allies, since its legitimacy was never in doubt.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 130): But after withdrawling from Iraq, we ought to withdrawl from Kosovo, Bosnia, South Korea. When the world is banging on our door about Somalia, Sudan, North Korea. We ought not get involved. It isn't our problem.

Petulant sulking child behaviour. Everybody has that impulse at times, but especially when you yourself had screwed things up you better get on top again instead and try to clean up your own act before looking for faults in others. That's just a diversion.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 125): Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 120): We opened the door for the chaos. We dismantled the entire security appratus, We then rebuilt the military and police.

We haven't rebult anything. They barely have a military, and their police force can't withstand what is going on over there. After Paul Bremer, that lout who dismantled the security appratus there, then got a medal for it, we've tried to rebuild. We haven't succeeded, or else our troops would be gone now.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 125): As did France, and Germany , and Russia, and Israel, and Italy.

They don't make policy for the United States. That fell on President Bush. He cast the die that sent us to war over a falsehood, not anyone else.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 125): What gives you the right to project on to me. You don't know anything about me. You're just putting me in a stereotypical template you worked out for yourself.

I'm calling it like I see it. I'll stand by it. It was never about the Iraqi people. It was about fame and glory.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 125): Yes this is a forum for opinion. Stop passing off your opinions as facts.

I don't recall saying it was anything other than opinion. But I do happen to believe my opinion is close to the truth.

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 133): "What is now Iraq"?

a hell of a mess ?     
-

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 133): on purpose to try to make a point?

no intention "to make a point" but simply correcting misconceptions

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 133): do not get it

there nothing to be got, so what ?
-

Quoting Klaus (Reply 134): But successfully turning a dictatorship into a stable democracy is a lot more complicated than the Bush administration obviously believed.

Granted. But as we've seen the sin the administration is guilty of is trusting that the Iraqi people where a civilized secular society. What you seem to be saying is that the Administration ought to have known the Iraqis were bloody minded sectarian clan oriented savages. Isn't that a stereotype we are trying to get away from?

Anyone who accuses the Administration of misunderstanding the situation in Iraq before the invasion is saying Iraqis have been fighting one another 5000 years, and it was naive to think they might be civilized and work through their problems in a political system. That's a racist point of view.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 134): Outside of the Bush administration and their immediate political supporters nobody sees any evidence for that to have happened in reality. Which usually means it's just wishful thinking to save face.

There's suspicion on my part but I don't support any action based on this suspicion. So there is no "wishful thinking." We know he destroyed some of his weapons. The inspectors accounted for some of it. But not all of it. And we know there are no WMD in Iraq now. So until the evidence shows how the discrepancy is accounted for, suspicion will always remain.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 134): The question is not the decision whether or not to engage the outside world, the question is whether to do it properly or not.

I think the country ought to be engaged. I'm just not in favor of being the world's policeman. By filling that roll the US has been baited into all kinds of accusations. The world has to stop looking to the US to do stuff. As I said before The US is more like the country the world loves to hate. I for one will support a policy that allows world to clean up their own messes.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 134): Petulant sulking child behaviour. Everybody has that impulse at times,

See above.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 134): No. But successfully turning a dictatorship into a stable democracy is a lot more complicated than the Bush administration obviously believed.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 134): Outside of the Bush administration and their immediate political supporters nobody sees any evidence for that to have happened in reality. Which usually means it's just wishful thinking to save face.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 134): But a military invasion is a highly dangerous way to get there. Even when its execution isn't as thoroughly botched by the leadership as this one was.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 134): Today the USA are so visibly weakened by Iraq that there is little if any threat potential left to intimidate anyone.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 134): Petulant sulking child behaviour. Everybody has that impulse at times, but especially when you yourself had screwed things up you better get on top again instead and try to clean up your own act before looking for faults in others. That's just a diversion.

Gotta admit, I have rarely seen a more arrogant and condecending post in all my years here.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 127): 1) It wasn't the right thing to do. 2) Previous UN resolutions left open the door for the Invasion. Rehashing this issue to death again doesn't move us forward, now does it?

I was thinking to reply but Klaus did so and much better. I don't like rehashing either, except that if one's friends still believe there were WMDs, and that the UN sanctioned the invasion, then it seems a good idea to suggest that perhaps neither of these is true.

Falcon84 seems to have dealt nicely with the canard that the police and military have been reconstructed. Except he did not go into the complexities that in the destruction of the Baathist structure, the US effectively reinforced the Sunni/Shia/Kurd schisms and then by structuring the elections the way it did, cemented the schisms into what is passed off as a government. This means that large parts of both police and army seem to owe their main allegiances not to the "government" of Iraq, but to other groups. This means that they are not effective forces - well not if they are supposed to be acting in the interests of Iraq!
Have the supporters of the "new" army ever wondered how it takes so long to train Iraqis? Training has been going on for years now, whereas to train troops for the US army or other western armies takes a few months to get at least basic competence. It is not that the Iraqis are stupid, they are just highly conflicted, and the west is responsible for a high proportion of that confliction. Not to mention of course the fact that prior to the invasion, the Iraqis did have an army. Not the best army perhaps, but quite good enough to fight Iran to a standstill.

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 138): Gotta admit, I have rarely seen a more arrogant and condecending post in all my years here.

I live to serve.

And by the way, it's spelled condescending in your language...   

Quoting Klaus (Reply 140): spelled condescending

he will NEVER forgive that act of "condescension" !      

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 137): Granted. But as we've seen the sin the administration is guilty of is trusting that the Iraqi people where a civilized secular society. What you seem to be saying is that the Administration ought to have known the Iraqis were bloody minded sectarian clan oriented savages. Isn't that a stereotype we are trying to get away from?

You're illustrating again how surreal some people's idea of "bringing democracy to the savages" is.

The reality is much more complicated.

Democracy is not just a set of a few rules (such as having elections every few years) which can be bestowed upon any society and which by their own inherent magical powers will turn every arbitrary country into a spitting image of the USA.

That is exactly how the Iraq invasion had been sold to the US public, and very few americans apparently found anything strange about that. In fact, the Bush administration actively dismissed, demoted, silenced, ridiculed or otherwise suppressed any voices which tried to object to this ridiculously oversimplified concept of transplanting democracy.

And the american opposition, press and population majority were willingly complicit.


In real life, democracy is first and foremost a fundamental principle which needs to be implanted into people's heads. And that requires making a convincing case for it - not in theory, but in actual practice and close enough to the daily experiences of the population.

You cannot tell them tales about how you're doing things back home, you need to find out how people are thinking, how their lives are organized, what their traditional power structures have been, whom they trust and whom they don't trust and specifically why that is.

Knowing those things, you'll have to stabilize people's lives to give them the opportunity to actually seriously consider taking the risk of changing the way they're doing things away from what they've known for all their lives so far.

Firmly establishing the rule of law is a central point, not arbitrarily at the whim and leisure of the occupation force, but reliably, fairly and clearly with the needs of the population front and center. Letting the country sink into chaos right from the get-go was a crucial failure of judgment ("untidiness" in Rumsfeld-speak).

Going from a tribal society with considerable conflict potential pent up during centuries of religious sectarian struggles and especially during the past decades of Saddam's rule towards a completely untested new democracy requires a huge leap of faith. And people simply won't go for that if you haven't managed or even cared to help them restoring water, electricity, employment and most of all order after you've overrun their country and toppled the highly imperfect and often dangerous but still mostly workable order they had before.


Today, iraqis are fleeing their home country by the thousands; The average iraqi has no job, no income, no security, no protection. Small wonder that the warlords and sectarian leaders can press and threaten ordinary, fair-minded people into service of their own power plays. The level of violence you see today is not what the average iraqi wants, it is what he or she can't stop with murderous militias ruling the streets (in many cases those murderous militias double as police or army by day - yes, the ones trained and supplied by your own forces!).

Insulting the victims of the completely incompetent and clueless invasion and occupation by telling them that it's actually all their own fault would be even more despicable and horrendous if you actually knew what you were talking about, but I'm rather certain you just don't.


Post-WWII Germany was a completely different case in almost every respect, and parading Germany as a blueprint for a "new Iraq" was the epitome of shortsightedness and naivity.

Unfortunately the Bush administration was completely clueless about those factors and plowed ahead anyway, even shoved everybody with a clue aside so the imbeciles at the top could get what they wanted, as harebrained as it was.


You're convinced it's all the iraqi's fault, but unfortunately almost all the troubles we see today could have been avoided had the Bush administration not chosen the wrong turn almost in every single case. Being wrong so consistently, against so many competent people at their disposal and with such a stubbornness is beyond criminal negligence.


Read up on the positions and warnings of internal and foreign critics of the invasion and you'll find pretty much every single problem you have today correctly predicted and specific warnings against mistakes subsequently made by the Bush admin. It is a tragedy of incompetence, hubris, intractable stubbornness and ideological delusion, with your troops unfortunately incapable of compensating the sheer amount of incompetence at the very top.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 137): There's suspicion on my part but I don't support any action based on this suspicion. So there is no "wishful thinking."

I don't see how you could draw any load-bearing conclusion from wild imaginings which don't have the slightest evidence on their side.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 137): We know he destroyed some of his weapons. The inspectors accounted for some of it. But not all of it. And we know there are no WMD in Iraq now. So until the evidence shows how the discrepancy is accounted for, suspicion will always remain.

The Bush administration has taken great pains to make you believe that the WMDs Saddam had been working on or even using before Gulf War I in 1990 were still in existence or even an active threat in 2003.

As experts have always explained, that was an extremely implausible assumption.

Actually, the UN inspections after the Gulf War destroyed Saddam's WMD programs completely and effectively. Much more effectively, in fact, than military interventions could.

There were remaining open questions regarding the gapless accounting for this old material, but as important as complete verification was and is, it was never even remotely any threat to the USA or could plausibly have been. As one american expert later put it in the case of chemical weapons from before 1990: "Well, it may not exactly be fit to drink, but it's definitely not a weapon any more today!"

You've been had on that one, I'm afraid.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 137): I think the country ought to be engaged. I'm just not in favor of being the world's policeman.

Agreed.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 137): By filling that roll the US has been baited into all kinds of accusations.

Ahem. In by far most cases US interventions (directly or indirectly) were quite self-serving. "We've been baited" was just an excuse made at home when things didn't work out as expected.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 137): The world has to stop looking to the US to do stuff.

Not beyond a reasonable point, I agree. Others have to take an increasing part of the load. After WWII, Germany had been largely demilitarized by comparison. No sense in military madness, of course, but the increasing role in international campaigns is the right direction, as hard as it is.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 137): As I said before The US is more like the country the world loves to hate.

Look at the way the Bush administration has treated everyone else and ask yourself how much of that is a self-inflicted wound. Punching your friends in the face doesn't make you popular, it only makes you a bully who will have everybody laughing when he stumbles.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 137): I for one will support a policy that allows world to clean up their own messes.

No objection in principle. But cooperation is just as important for the USA as it is for the rest of us, as their current weakness and attrition demonstrates.

You've screwed this up. You weren't willing to listen to anybody about it. Now suck it up and at least stop insulting your friends and allies (yeah, we're still here, even though your attitude really sucked in the past six years) when it's about cleaning up the mess you've made.

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 138): Gotta admit, I have rarely seen a more arrogant and condecending post in all my years here.

what is this then?

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 131): Doesnt all that kool-aid make you want to pee?

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 131): Are you with Hamas or Hezbollah?

...sounds as rude and arrogant as anything else to me.....

Quoting Baroque (Reply 139): This means that large parts of both police and army seem to owe their main allegiances not to the "government" of Iraq, but to other groups. This means that they are not effective forces - well not if they are supposed to be acting in the interests of Iraq!

This is angles dancing on the head of a pin at this point. Since day one of the invasion we had people saying get out of Iraq. I'm looking for a way to satisfy the terms of the mission and leave as quickly as we can per those sentiments. I may not agree with the reasons. Some may think it was wrong in the first place, some may think it was for oil both all it doesn't matter to me. My point is that the conditions are such that the mission could be called complete. There is an Army and a Police force. If it isn't up to snuff, they had plenty of opportunity and money to get it up to snuff. If someone else wants to equip them and continue with the training, the UN or some NGO by all means do so. By in terms of fulfilling the mission the Military can say Done.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 139): It is not that the Iraqis are stupid, they are just highly conflicted, and the west is responsible for a high proportion of that conflict ion. Not to mention of course the fact that prior to the invasion, the Iraqis did have an army. Not the best army perhaps, but quite good enough to fight Iran to a standstill.

I disagree. First using history as a guide the Allies used the De-Nazification in Germany as a guide. It was the best model they had. Secondly the Iraqi military fought Iran to a standstill with heavy Western aide and before it was pounded into the sand by the US military. The military that as left was good for nothing by terrorising civilians in my opinion. Which worked to Saddam's advantage, and has worked to the advantage of the insurgents as well.

Harry Reid has called for some tough love with Iraq. They are leaning to heavily on the US. The politicians haven't the balls to grapple with real solutions or real problems for that matter. Leaving will force them to.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 143): ...sounds as rude and arrogant as anything else to me.....

Thats because you have an agenda.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 141): he will NEVER forgive that act of "condescension" !

You just can't attack someone and leave yourself that vulnerable at the same time without ducking for cover right away...!   

No (serious) offense intended, nevertheless!

Peace!  

Quoting Klaus (Reply 146): You just can't attack someone and leave yourself that vulnerable at the same time without ducking for cover right away...!

You must admit, if my typing is the only thing you see fit to attack after all that, then......

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 144): Since day one of the invasion we had people saying get out of Iraq.

No. As Colin Powell once said: "Pottery barn rules apply: You break it, you own it!"

I can understand that the Democrats are keen on pinning the failure of Bush's Iraq war onto the tail end of his presidency instead of inheriting it for themselves (presumably), but not just the willing complicity most of them exhibited during the run-up to the invasion makes that approach smack quite a bit of hypocrisy.

Unfortunately, the mission objective has in practice degraded from "bringing democracy to Iraq" through "leavin Iraq at least halfway stable" to "let's at least rescue our own army from the ruins" or is at least on the way to there.

Your own military has been put through the grinder to an extent that this will turn into a rescue mission on their behalf eventually, and I'm afraid that point looks likely to come much earlier than a free, stable and blooming Iraq ever could. 

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 144): First using history as a guide the Allies used the De-Nazification in Germany as a guide.

See my post above - mistaking Iraq for a carbon-copy of Germany in 1945 was a crucial mistake, and even that carbon copy was made extremely sloppily.

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 147): You must admit, if my typing is the only thing you see fit to attack after all that, then......

Your attack had about the substance of diet water. What to respond to, actually?

Throwing a bucket of well-deserved acid onto your spelling was the only feasible response at all.

UALPHLCS at least argues, even if we disagree on many things.

You may have noticed, by the way, that I strictly use bio-degradable acid which doesn't erode people, just nonsense.