Bush Defends Iraq War Strategy(a little different)...
 

This is the article I bolded what interested me, I don't know what to say that probably hasn't been said on this forum already. Anyway, I appreciate that he takes some responsibility. He should have done this a long time ago.


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines

What I find laughable are the constant complaints that "...there is no plan to win the peace" as Kerry would say, but then after each milestone they say well that was good, but not good enough we need a "plan". Then asked what they would do - they say we would have a "plan". When did we publish the plan to liberate Europe during WWII? Yes, it was after the war. Wow, what a concept.

While Bush is making progress and may go down in history as the person who initiated the actions that end middle eastern conflicts and the war on terror, Democrats will still be looking for a "plan".

This phenomina(sp) is known as the "Yeah, but..." democratic reasoning.

Can't blame them though, Iraq is less then perfect and Midterms are looming.

geez--someone who goes where not even wolfowitz would.

what is really curious about the above is that it recapitulates what the same kind of extreme rightwingers used to complain about with reference to stalin--that human suffering can be trivialized in any political actions becausethe ends justify the means. 30,000 iraqis, 2200 americans dead, the credibility of teh united states shredded internationally, of the white house domestically on and on and on--but in extremerightwingland, the end is all that matters.
all the more if that end is wholly a matter of fantasy at this point.

of course, just as the "argument" in the above is not falsifiable--because it relies upon a wholly lunatic understanding of the war in iraq, its motives, its progress, its potential outcomes--so it is that the right recapitulates a stalinist logic only when it is defending one of its own.
it follows then that what justifies the iraq war for ace is the fact that george w bush launched it.
nothing else matters.

for myself, i think bush should be impeached for leading the country into war under false pretenses. there should be consequences for this magnitude of fuck up.
i would also argue the same thing had a democrat been mad enough to launch such a war.

In the world I live in, when confronted with an enemy who wants to kill you, you either fight or die. I choose to fight. I don't trivialize the issue, to the contrary, you might say I take the issue too seriously because I beleive inaction will lead to more death when confronted with an enemy at war with you.

I think we were at war long before we actually invaded Iraq. Don't you agree?

What matters to me is defending my family, my life, liberty, and property. I will not do others harm if they respect what matters to me.

The instability in the Middle East is a threat, inaction will not solve the problem. Diplomacy failed. Economic sanctions failed. Trying to be nice failed. I am open to other alternatives, but no person or party has presented one.

Altering the course of history has always taken bold unpopular actions. If we maintain the courage to address the middle east perhaps our children won't have to.

Yes, I do stand with Bush. Not because of party, but because the problem needs to be addressed.

Nice to see the spin is still perculating in populace.

Bush to declare end to fighting in Iraq May 1 2003


It's been over 2 years......what a concept

sounds like an insurgents point of view?

When did Iraq attack the US? Were they at our shores, with WMDs and connections to terrorism? Or were they a middle Eastern country that was sitting on oil that might have ended up in China or Japan? Who attacked first, the United States or Iraq? That's what I thought.
Your family was in danger from Iraq?
How about we leave them alone? That's an alternative. How about we take even a fraction of what we're spending on the rebuilding and spend it on research into alternate fuels? How about we fund our countries DEFENCE, not offence?
How does one alter the course of history? Isn't that any supposed alteration the course of history? If we use up all the oil, perhaps our kids can starve and freeze to death.
Can you explain how we are serving to remedy the problem?

Nothing seems to solve the problems there. Other countries have gone in and tried to control the area, and they were eventually forced out or just left because it was too much trouble. The people were then left to themselves and they end up with either overly domineering dictators or an overly domineering group of religous leaders, and the people are back to square 1. And of course they wouldn't blame those leaders, or themselves.. it's always someone else. If it isnt Britain its the US, or the Jews.. never themselves.


What i would like to know is how many republicans would be taking the stands they're taking right now if GWB were a registered democrat?

Quoted by Roachboy: I have sincerely tried to present my beliefs in a neutral fashion, with the hope that balanced debate would be possible. Ratbastard has done a wonderful job in his new topic to keep a topic at the bipartisan level.

It simply doesn't appear possible in this forum to have an intelligent debate, and I don't have the energy to continue to convey new information that is dismissed as "fuckpoints".

My most hated word, I will now resort to: "Whatever"

I probably shouldn't have made this so open ended, but let's see where it takes us. I think aceventura3's point is not that Iraq per se attacked us but that it was a part of the "war on terror". Basically a battle in a greater justified war that was first recognized with the September 11th terrorist attacks. Not necessarily so much focused on Iraq, but trying to see a bigger picture that perhaps this is only a small step into a much grander and more focused plan; the focus being the safety of Americans and the American nation from unfriendly nations.
At least that's what I get, ace you can correct me if I’m wrong.
All right I understand your point, but I’m not convinced, the facts being that Iraq has never been truly connected with the war on terror, perhaps on some level there is the argument that Iraq will bring democracy to the middle east. This is a position that is just plain uninformed, no one can know that this is what will happen.
I guess the pejorative statements against the war can be summed up in: Being in Iraq has nothing to do with the defense of America and the premises upon which we agreed to go into Iraq were categorically wrong.

What I see here is someone who is FINALLY admitting something that's been painfully obvious from the get go - that Iraq had no WMD's and that intelligence saying they did was wrong. Took him long enough, considering that's been established for over a year now.

What I also see is Bush AGAIN trying to link Iraq to 9/11, even though no connection between the two ever existed. What I FURTHER see is Bush failing to link 9/11 to Saudi Arabia, even though the majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi and were trained in Saudi Arabia.

So in other words, I see 90% business as usual bullshit and 10% "oh crap, there's no way we can deny this any more, even the biggest freaking idiot on the planet won't believe us, so let's admit to it in one sentence, sandwiched in between the 90% bullshit, and then claim we've been 100% honest and good like we usually do when we get caught."

elphaba:

i'm confused.
help please.

I really would like to see *something* done to change the situation with Iraq. Sure the pres came forward with all this *finally*.. but what does it really matter? What has changed? What will change? I have the feeling that things will go on the way they have ben going on this whole time. The lies will continue, some of th same ones, some new ones. (The number of Iraqi troops that are actually trained and being used for example.. no one seems to actually know how many are doing what they're supposed to be doing, etc..) The party in power will hold more-or-less a unified front unless they need to shift slightly to get re-elected and that is the most we'll see when it comes to change. In the mean time people will continue to die every single day with no end in sight.

I mean.. what will happen when the Iraqi troops are finally able to get themselves going and the US pulls most of our guys out? How long will that fighting continue to range on? It would be like Northern Ireland only much much worse, and of course every other country in the region will throw their weight around and mix things up in Iraq and make things a complete mess. But we'll be out of there and unable to do anything about it. So it'll still be a huge mess, most likely worse than what we started with,a nd the problems in the region will continue on and on and on as thy always have and always will. It will never end.

I really wonder if the people who said we would be greeted with flowers on the streets really believed those words, or if they were just saying them to get us there. I mean i *KNOW* that they heard over and over from an uncountable number of sources the type of chaos that would erupt if we started a war there. They had to have known what the true situation would be like, they aren't stupid.. thse are men who have lived and breathed this stuff for most of their lives.. they're not stupid or naive. They *KNEW* what would really happen. *EVERYONE* knew what would really happen. Why did they want us there? Why did they lie so blantantly? Why are they still lying so blatantly? Why and where are they still finding support for this?

Of course its all too late now. We're there, and anyone who thinks we're leaving next year should have their head examined. Our troops will never leave that country. We're in and we're staying. We needed control over that region and this is the best control we will ever have. We need the resources there and if a few hundred thousand people have to die then that is what will happen. This is the reality of the United States of America and the world today. It's a truly horrifying reality, and sugar-coating it does no one any good.

"When did Iraq attack the US?" Daily, for 10 years straight, when we were patrolling the no-fly zones that the UN imposed. Our response after 8 years of that - lets pull out the weapons inspectors and let Saddam run free.

"The instability in the Middle East is a threat, inaction will not solve the problem. Diplomacy failed. Economic sanctions failed. Trying to be nice failed. I am open to other alternatives, but no person or party has presented one."

touche. "Diplomacy failed. Economic sanctions failed. Trying to be nice failed." I.E. - Dems, 1; Republicans, 0.

While Bush passifies the left with an insignificant acknowlegement thats news to noone, and they have a circle jerk over it, progress will continue - much to liberal chagrin.

Maybe your points could actually be discussed if you acted in a civil manor, if no one has anything to add to this "discussion" then this thread might as well be closed. I can see that a true discussion/debate seems unattainable on this particular subject.

Who are you talking to? No one's been uncivil. Several good points have been raised by several people. If by true discussion you mean you want everyone to suddenly love Bush because he finally, grudgingly, admitted one mistake among thousands, I fear you're going to be disappointed.

You say prehape's our children wont have to, yet it will be our children that pay the bill for this not us. The middle east has been UNSTABLE for generation upon generation, Bush does not have the power to change that. Just because a person wins does not make them right, and just because we go over there and try to establish democracy while killing over 30,000 innocents it deffinantly does not mean that the end justifies the means.

honestly, stopped reading after "Given Saddam's history and the lessons of Sept. 11, my decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision. "

saddam...9/11....exactly what connection is that, really? IIRC, most of the people involved were saudi...

Almost stopped reading after: "It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As president, I'm responsible for the decision to go into Iraq, and I'm also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities" bc considering who he went to for his 'intelligence' and how several groups were rejected bc they were not on board with his pre-conceived notion of what was going on..well, that just makes me question him, personally. Also, the way he 'takes responsibility' is by insulting said intelligence and then showing how great he is for 'reforming our intelligence capabilities"...

I'm just waiting for oil to enter back into the discourse... nobody in the mainstream seems willing to discuss the 500 pound gorilla in the room that is oil

what oil? where is this sudden deluge of oil that bush supposedly went to war for? I never thought I would see gas prices go over $3 a gallon.

anyway, thats off topic sorta. back to the originally scheduled program.

The way "Mission Accomplished" was communicated was a mistake.

Even Kerry acknowledges two stages. Stage one, was the invasion, which was accomplished. Stage two was establishing stability, smoe still debate if this is accomplished. Stage three establishing an independent Iraqi government, in process.

My point of view is that I won't purposefully go after innocent people. Insurgents will attempt to kill anyone in hopes of intimidating, children, women, Iraqi's, fellow Muslims, people attempting to help the country, and you if they had the opportunity. To me thats a big difference, don't you agree?

But, what does "taking responsibility" mean? Doesn't taking responsibility mean that there are consequences?

I consider this to be an empty gesture.

When someone says they are my enemy, when they say they want to destroy me, when they declare war against my nation, when they defy international mandates, when they have a history of killing massive numbers of their own people, when they reward sucide bomber families with $25,000, when they have a history of invading other countries, when they have a hisory of sending bomb to blow-up other countries (Remember the SCUD missles), when they try to hide the fact they may or may not have nuclear weapons, etc, etc. :hmm: :

I think its a problem.

I think it is a threat.
I dont think we can "leave them alone".
We were at war long before we actually went to war.

If alive I would have supported FDR during WWII. I did not support Vietnam. I have not studied the Korean war enough to make a conclusion. I supported JFK's actions during the Cuban Missle crisis. I felt Bush Sr. should have taken Iraq during Desert Storm. Party has nothing to do with my views on world conflict.

At the risk of sounding too corny: Freedom has never been free.

A price was paid for the Revolutionary War. Was it worth it?
A price was paid for the Civil War. Was it worth it?
A price was paid for WWII. Was it worth it?

Are you suggesting there will never be peace in the Middle East? If peace is possible, what is going to initiate it? I beleive peace is possible, and I beleive representative governments will lead to peace. I think the average person, anywhere in the world wants to take care of thier families, have liberty, and the ability to make the most of their lives. Those who want instability and who want to control the lives of others are loosing power

I was referring to the post above, and I meant what I said I would rather talk about points then berate others with "jokes" that do have their place but are not civil, all these jokes do is instigate. Here's what i was specifically responding too:
As to your other point i don't think anyone should love Bush or hate Bush, when irrational feelings get mixed in to a political debate any shred of objectivity is thrown out of the window.

Maybe it is. Perhaps if he had said this much earlier it would have had some credence.

All this administration has done is whack a hornets nest with a stick. Left alone, you *might* have gotten stung. Using the stick has pissed off the hornets and many that would have went about there business are now actively stinging the stick wielder.

Iraq was no threat to the US.

It is interesting to note that the Iraqi sanctions were about to be lifted. European oil companies were already in negotiations for deals with the Iraqis while US companies were going to be completely left out. It's also interesting that it is US interests that are benefitting from the rebuilding of Iraq and the exploitation of its oil... rather than say, the Iraqis?

Why is it that the Iraqis, who have a lot of experience in rebuilding their infrastructure (it have been destroyed and rebuilt a few times now) aren't being permitted to rebuild their own country? Why are those contracts going to companies like Halliburton?

Why was the Cheney Energy Task Force meeting with heads of Big Oil and passing around maps of the Iraqi oil feilds in the Spring of 2001? - maps with none of the usual details like cities, roads and towns, rather it was just the oil. It wasn't meant for public consumption of course, but only came to light after a length legal fight by Judicial Watch.

This Task Force also had a chart called "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfields". It IDs 63 companies from 30 nations who were in various stages of negotiations with the Iraqi government to exploit these fields once the sanctions were lifted.

Interesting that at the same time as this Energy Task Force was meeting and exploring the oil fields of Iraq, the Administration was focused on overthrowing Hussein's regime.

It's also interesting to note that the prize in this scenario would be private ownership of Middle Eastern oil fields for the first time in many, many years.

Of course no one talks about this. It's all just "conspiracy theories". Let's not look into these questions any further.

history has shown us (for those that choose not to ignore it) that leaving someone alone DOESN'T work. It didn't work for spain most recently.

when a dictator shells out 25,000 dollars to a family for a successful mass murder, it only serves to prompt more families to do it. It was only a matter of time before it hit us.

That was Clinton's logic about bin laden. He hadn't "done" anything to the US that would justify us arresting him when the sudan offered him up. Clinton figured to just let him be and *hopefully* we won't get stung. Well you know what? we did get stung. pretty bad too. And the context in which the arguement to go into iraq was in a post 9/11 era. Bush said we have to act BEFORE there is an imminent threat, because once the threat is imminent, it is already too late. We had suspicions and intelligence at the time that pointed toward saddam having WMDs and that he had the desire to, and perhaps, the capabilities to persue nuclear weapons. So we could have sat around and hoped we didn't get stung, all the while turning a blind eye to evil, letting the butcher continue to terrorize his own people and continue to fill mass graves whenever he wanted. Or we could take the risk, go to war, over throw him, ending any chance he may have had at arming terrorist groups with WMDs, and ending his reign of evil over the people of iraq.

Apparently you would rather him stay in power, continue to kill, rape, and rob his people, all the while planning on getting back at the US for stopping him 10 years earlier.

I think we need to go into iran too. Either that or someone with some nuts (Israel) needs to.

Smacks self upside the head

I intended to include my agreement with you. Would somebody give that guy a blowjob, so we can get the impeachment started? :rolleyes:

To rebuild the democracy that the US destroyed back in the 40s and 50s? Irony is... ironic.

I don't think there is anyone that would admit Saddam wasn't a bastard. That the world is better off without him.

I just don't buy the Administrations altruistic spin on things. If they are so damned altruistic, why not take out North Korea? Fix the Sudan... Hell why not go after the Chinese? Their human rights violation would make Saddam's toes curl.

The Administration was quite happy to support Saddam and look the other way on his abuses as long as he served the US business interests. As soon as he turned his back on the US and started doing what he wanted rather than what they wanted, he was a marked man.

Interestingly there are many that are making a heck of a lot of money form this adventure. Few of them are Iraqi.

Um, Clinton attempted to take bin Laden out and the lynch mob in congress screamed that he was "wagging the dog".

Additionally, bin Laden is still free as a bird, but we have captured Sadam and we've killed his sons, none of whom had anything to do with 9/11, contemptible as the may be.

Sadam was in power since 60's (with our help in a 1963 coup). Now all of a sudden 2000 kids have to die because of weapons that do not exist?

a few missles into an abandoned training camp is attempting to take him out? what do you call the refusal to take him when he was offered to us?

he may not be in our custody, but he is not free as a bird. I don't recall any of his little videos hitting al-jazeera lately hidden with messages for his minions to attack. Do you? And its not the fact that saddam and his sons were involved in 9/11 per say. it is all related in the fact that there is an organization out there who wants to kill all the infidels and continue to bomb our buildings. where me, my family, my friends work, shop, eat, and live. taking saddam out removes any threat that he may have potentially posed. I know those are alot of auxillary verbs, but if in the end it turns out he was not that close to arming terrorists with WMDs, its not a lost cause since the shit-head is out of power. To me it is a win-win.

so because of past actions, current and future actions that could correct the past should not be undertaken?? And to the more than 2,000 soldiers who have sacrificed their lives and the thousand others than have sacrificed parts of themselves, I am thankful, as many americans are. It was their choice to serve and you should respect that instead of using their sacrifice to justify your opposition.

it is what it is.

then stop complaining.

so do you or don't you want the US to be the world police. Seems to me we're damned if we do and we're damned if we don't so we might as well not place too much weight on what the world thinks as much as what is in our best interest, because after all they're not going to be happy with what we do anyway. You just can't please them all, you know.

The Administration...you mean the Bush Administration? you lost me. I don't think our current president ever supported saddam.

really? I don't think you did the math right. http://newsblaze.com/story/200512132...Top-Story.html Seems to me that iraqis are making billions more now than there were with saddam in power...

Such a lovely koan. The shrug that goes with it is almost French in its intent.


I don't want anyone to be the "world police". I am simply trying to point out that this altruism that the Administration is using for spin is a lot of baloney.

No. You are right. The President would never support the man that tried to kill his daddy. But, Rumsfeld and Cheney were certainly supporting him during the Reagan Administration.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/...ndshake300.jpg



You are right. The Iraqis are doing better now that the sanctions have been lifted. Although comparing thier financial status now to what it was like under Saddam and sanctions is a bit much.

My point is... that, like many, I am highly suspicious of Cheney's involvment with Halliburton and the profits that are being made by that company's involvment in the rebuilding of Iraq. Why not just let the Iraqi's rebuild their country? It seems they've done it before. It also seems that a lot of the conflict in Iraq has to do with foreign (read: American) precense in Iraq. Why exacerbate this by importing more Americans?

A price was paid for Viet Nam, as well. Is the situation there better or even different than if we had not been involved?

how familiar are you with the Iran/Iraq war and the reasons why the US sided with saddam at the time?

Yes. The isolation of Iran and the spread of their brand of revolution was deemed important.

Interesting that the US then sold weapons to Iran as well. So much for isolation.

No, it sounds like a HUMAN point of view. One I happen to agree with. When you boil things down, the arguments used by the insurgents and us are pretty much the same thing. the fight fo freedom, they attacked us, etc. etc.

Let's face it here, this is a situation in which there are no good guys or bad guys. We invaded them. Plain and simple. Not the move of a good guy. They blow up inocent women and children with reckless abandon in their attempts to blow us up. We kill civilians fighting while shooting at them (That it is not intentional is the only redeeming factor, and that is no comfort to the family of those killed, or the poor guy who has to live with what happened). No one here has the moral high ground as far as I can see.

I don't agree with reasons for this war as put out to us, but the simple truth is, we are there. So maybe, instead of pressing blame on this person or that party, we can all buck down, and try to get our men and woman out of there in one piece and leave behind a more stable country then found. I don't care if it's democradic or not, just as long as they no longer try to blow us or themselves up anymore.

and we know why this was done, right? not that it should have been nor was it a very ethical thing to do.

Who was it who said: "The flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag"?

I did not support Vietnam. If I had been old enough to have been drafted, I would have choose jail.

My point is that some wars have to be fought. I think the war on terror, the invasion of Iraq had to occur given the circumstances. I guess we will always disagree. I understand that, just like there are some who disagree with me regarding Vietnam.

During WWII there were many who wanted nothing to do with getting involved in the war in Europe, and Germany did not invade us. In the end I doubt there are many who thought that war was not worth the price. I don't use who invaded who first as the primary reason for war.

I think it was Sun Tzu. And I think he referred to the fact that soldiers will only following leaders who take care of them. Support of the flag requires resources and soldiers will follow where resources are available for provisions or something like that.

The Reagan twist on Tzu's Art of War; was compasion through strength, or out spending your enemy will lead to your enemies defeat without firing a single shot.

Reagan was a lot easier to understand than Tzu.

I would have been right there with you. :thumbsup:
I think the war on terror and the war on Iraq are very much different. The war on terrorism targets individuals linked with terrorism and planning terrorism, people and groups not necessarily associated with a country or government. For example: we want to catch and bring to justice those who were involved in the bombing of a US embasy, who happened to be Saudi. We do not want to go attack Saudi Arabia. The attack and invasion on Iraq on the other hand, has more to do with economic control, regional stability, vengence, and regional control than bringing people to justice.
The primary reason for war is defence. We were not in danger from Iraq (except for our planes flying over Iraq dropping bombs, those could be shot down, but I suspect you can see the difference).

Is your condescension neccessary? Why don't you act like an adult and just say what you are thinking rather than acting like a goof.

You're right. Clinton should have gotten him, no matter what the idiots in congress said. And we as a nation should have been howling in rage over the fact that Clinton wasn't getting him. Unfortunately we were too busy howling in vicarious lust over the fact that Clinton got it on with a bimbo intern.



Oh, well great then. Let's treat all criminals like that. As long as we don't think they're in a position to commit crimes, don't bother capturing them. Ken Lay isn't head of Enron anymore so he can't pull that crap any more. Let's not punish him either.

Oh, and by the way, Pajhwok Afghan News is reporting they just received a bin Laden video. If that turns out to be true, it kinda blows your whole theory outa the water ;)

That organization is Al Qaeda. Not Iraq. See, they're two different things. No matter how many times Bush says their names in the same sentence, that still won't connect them. Go after Al Qaeda. Not Iraq.

Gee, killing you or Halx or the guy down the street eliminates any potential threat you three might cause too. Of course, the fact that there is NO credible evidence that there's any such threat from any of you should cause your executioners to reconsider, shouldn't it?

Ahh I get it. We as the greatest democracy on earth, the country that believes in the freedom of choice, should be allowed to take out anyone we don't like, even if he doesn't pose a threat to us.

There's a word for that. It's called imperialism. Some would also call it barbarian.


Bull SHIT. That's a GREAT argument for you because it's one that, if we accept the premise, you can never lose. You go on the premise that pointing out someone died needlessly disrespects the person that died. That's not only wrong, it's stupid. If that's the case, Columbine should never have been reported, because in order to tell anyone about it you have to talk about needless deaths.

Saying that we've killed 2,000 soldiers is not disrespectful of those soldiers. It is not unsupportive of the troops to want to bring them home to their families where they are safe.

If you want to talk about not supporting the soldiers, how about not supplying them with the necessary equipment (erm. . .ARMOR?) or numbers to get the job done? How about forcing national guard soldiers, who signed up to defend the country and help out in natural disasters - not to fight optional foriegn wars, to stay in Iraq for far longer than their regular army counterpoints? How about bringing national guard units home and then sending them back out 3 months later?

If you want to accuse someone of not supporting our troops, look to the commander in chief.

One thing I do question is what was the cost when Bin Laden was offered to us?

I do wonder if there were strings attached, plus at the time AL-Quida was at it heighth in "power" and Clinton could have feared that by taking him we'd see a lot of terrorism on US soil.

Or perhaps (and I am sure the Right will laugh and ridicule me for saying this) Clinton didn't because of what Bin Laden could say about his past dealings with the US and it would be more damaging than we may ever know. This very well could be the reason why Bush doesn't truly seek him out.

With Saddam, there isn't much that could come out that would harm us as much, if at all.

I don't think we'll ever truly know the truth, and maybe it is best we don't in some cases.

One thing I do give credit to Bush for is that Al Quida seems to have been weakened beyond repair. Key word "Seems". But he lacks the initiative to destroy it completely.... and sometimes if you do not destroy something, it comes back stronger than ever and you don't get the second chance to destroy it.

my apologies if my posts came across in a condescending manner. They were not meant to be. I simply asked so I knew where it was you were coming from and with what information you knew about it.

Yet you realize that in all those wars you listed, it was AMERICANS fighting for AMERICAN freedom. Of course freedom is not free, but what makes it our duty to pay for the middle easts "freedom and stability" with American lives?

Is the cost worth chancing a "maybe" gain? A gain that would still probably be unlasting in that Iraq has been rather volatile for a VERY long time and while probably contunue to be so.

Someone's gonna jump on you for WWII since we fought the Japanese AND the Germans, and the Germans weren't attacking us. We must remember, though, that Germany DID declare war on us. That gave us more justification to fight than we ever had in the current situation.

I think the main difference between Iraq and the other wars is who was the agressor. In the previous ones we were defending ourselfs or others against an agressor in this war we are the agressor. There is a huge difference between defending yourself or a nation that cannot defend itself and attacking a nation. Yes Saddam was bad but now we are fighting a war against Iraqi's. Iraqi's are targeting american's, our soldiers are escalting the problems.

There are a bunch of very interesting polls in this weeks Time.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...139829,00.html


Overall, how would you say things are going these days ...

... in your life? Very well .......... 22% Quite well .......... 49% Quite badly .......... 18% Very badly .......... 11%

... in Iraq overall? Very well .......... 14% Quite well .......... 30% Quite badly .......... 23% Very badly .......... 30%

•What is your expectation for how things will be a year from now ...

... in your life? Better .......... 64% Same .......... 14% Worse .......... 12%

... in Iraq overall? Better .......... 69% Same .......... 11% Worse .......... 11% ...

BUT WANT SECURITY TO BE RESTORED

•What is your main priority for Iraq over the next 12 months? (Top five answers) Regaining public security .......... 57% Getting U.S. forces out .......... 10% Rebuilding infrastructure .......... 9% Increasing oil production .......... 7% Having a stable government .......... 5%

63% said dealing with members of the Saddam Hussein regime is “no priority at all”

•How has the security situation changed since Iraq regained sovereignty in June 2004?

Those saying it's better Better: 41% Don't know: 10%

Who is responsible for the improvement? Iraqi police .......... 28% Government .......... 22% Iraqi army .......... 12% Security forces .......... 10%

Those saying it's worse Worse: 31% Same: 18%

Who is responsible for the deterioration? Americans .......... 34% Government .......... 30% Terrorists .......... 17% Iraqi police .......... 5%

•Do you think security will improve or worsen in a year? Improve .......... 70% Worsen .......... 12%

•How safe do you feel in your neighborhood? Very safe .......... 63% Not very safe ..........30%

OPTIMISM, BUT OLD DIVISIONS REMAIN Iraqi public opinion is remarkably upbeat, but behind the numbers are the ethnic rivalries that have long split the country. The Sunnis, who held power under Saddam Hussein, feel the most aggrieved

ENTIRE COUNTRY Life is better since the war .......... 51% U.S. was right to invade Iraq .......... 46% Feel very safe in neighborhood .......... 63% Approve of new constitution .......... 70% Oppose coalition forces .......... 64%

KURDISH AREA Life is better since the war .......... 73% U.S. was right to invade Iraq .......... 80% Feel very safe in neighborhood .......... 91% Approve of new constitution .......... 88% Oppose coalition forces .......... 22%

SHI’ITE AREA Life is better since the war .......... 59% U.S. was right to invade Iraq .......... 58% Feel very safe in neighborhood .......... 82% Approve of new constitution .......... 85% Oppose coalition forces .......... 59%

BAGHDAD AREA Life is better since the war .......... 59% U.S. was right to invade Iraq .......... 47% Feel very safe in neighborhood .......... 70% Approve of new constitution .......... 79% Oppose coalition forces .......... 72%

SUNNI AREA Life is better since the war .......... 25% U.S. was right to invade Iraq .......... 16% Feel very safe in neighborhood .......... 21% Approve of new constitution .......... 36% Oppose coalition forces .......... 85%

THEY WANT A STABLE DEMOCRACY ...

•Which of these systems would be best for Iraq ...

... now? A democracy .......... 57% A dictatorship .......... 26% An Islamic state .......... 14%

... in 5 years? A democracy .......... 64% A dictatorship .......... 18% An Islamic state .......... 12%

•How much confidence do you have that the elections planned for this month will create a stable Iraqi government? A great deal .......... 42% Quite a lot .......... 34% Not very much .......... 14% None .......... 5%

•Percentage who think women should be able to ... 99% ... vote 99% ... be a doctor 84% ... drive a car 80% ... run for national office 78% ... instruct men at work 77% ... run for local office 51% ... be Governor 46% ... be President

… BUT HAVE LITTLE PRAISE FOR THE U.S.

•Since the war, how do you feel about the way in which the U.S. and other coalition forces have carried out their responsibilities? Very good job .......... 10% Quite a good job .......... 27% Quite a bad job .......... 19% Very bad job .......... 40%

•Do you support or oppose the presence of coalition forces in Iraq? Strongly support .......... 13% Somewhat support .......... 19% Somewhat oppose .......... 21% Strongly oppose .......... 44%

•When should coalition forces leave Iraq? When security is restored .......... 31% Now .......... 26% After a new government is in place .......... 19% When Iraqi security forces are ready .......... 16%

This poll was conducted for TIME, ABC News, the BBC, NHK and Der Spiegel by Oxford Research International. Interviews were conducted in person from Oct. 8 to Nov. 13, in Arabic and Kurdish, among a random national sample of 1,711 Iraqis age 15 and older. Margin of error is +/- 2.5 percentage points.

The fact is many Iraqi's do not want us there, they don't want us there enough that they are attacking us. We are now the enemy.

Here is what we need to do. Withdraw our troops from every city. Hand control of the cities over to local forces but maintain our forces in rural areas outside of the cities. Stay there for a few months and if any cities errupt in violence then move into those cities and retake control. Cities that don't have problems maintain their soverignty. And eventually troops will get moved to trouble areas only. This will do so much good for us. 1) it moves our troops out of harms way 2) it stops the pooring of fule on the fire 3) it prepairs us for a with draw 4) it allows us to focus on trouble areas while leaving other areas alone. 5) It gives Iraqi's the impression that we are leaving and progress is being made. 6) we could start bringing troops home. I'm sure I could list many more points.

I challenge you all to come up with reasons that something like this would be a bad plan.

Rekna:
I say it's excellent
the only thing I'd say different is
seeing as how the Kurds are most stable
I'd move some troops north(into rural areas and accross the border)just in case
then pull out south city by city
If we go all at once.....chaos

Sorry to hijack a little, but that in itself was an empty justification. Germany was required by treaty (the Tripartite Pact) to declare war on us after we had done so on Japan. There is considerable evidence that this fact was actually one of the reasons that the American government "encouraged" Japan to start a war with us in the first place. The American public didn't want to get involved in the European war, but the government did. Getting Germany to declare war on us by default was a convenient way to change their minds.

Interestingly, the US had been committing acts of war (by most definitions) against Germany long before war was declared. Despite that, Hitler had given explicit orders that American shipping was not to be attacked if it could be at all avoided. America could have stayed out of WW2 for quite a while (indefinitely?) without being attacked, but I think we'd all agree that that would have been a bad idea.

I'm seeing this discussion, as many other on this particular forum have, degrade into a Democrat/Republican shi*slinging fest.

What crap.

When we stop dealing with each other as labels such as "right-winger", "liberal", "neo-con", etc., we'll be able to more rationally discuss issues.

These labels are designed to take away our ability to talk with each other, aside from an "I hate the other side" perspective. They're also designed to polarize the politics in this country into two distinct groups. I think we'd be much better off scrapping the Dems/Reps and looking at some of the smaller parties who have some new, fresh ideas for government.

Oh, and so I'm not ENTIRELY thread-jacking...

I'm glad our gov't finally admitted that our intel was faulty. While I don't buy the argument that "we broke it, it's ours" -- Iraq was well and truly broken LONG before we ever stepped into the picture -- I do believe that we further de-stabilized the country and probably the region with our actions. Therefore, we should at least try to assist with re-stabilization. Then we should get the FUCK out.

Yeah, I know all that - but still, they DID declare war on us, and that means we did have more of an excuse to go to war with them than we did with Iraq.

Apology accepted. :)

What I was getting at is that I feel the US continues to swing at hornet's nests - sometimes with the best intentions (i.e. arming the mujahideen
in Afghanistan) and sometimes with more shady intentions (i.e. supporting various dictators in Latin America).

The point is, regardless of their intentions on these interventions, the results are generally shitty.

In the case of Iraq, the US supplied Saddam with the very chemicals he used to not only release mustard gas on Iranian soldiers but later on the Kurds. While I can appreciate the fact that the US would be wary of an anti-US movement growing in popularity in a part of the world they depend on for their primary source of energy (oil) the result was just a short term solution.

The true long term solution in the Middle East, the one that Industry would never allow, is to make the US more fuel efficient and to find other sources of fuel.

If you truly want to solve the US problem with the Middle East then just remove the US from the Middle East... or at least greatly reduce its dependance on and interests in the Middle East (I realize I am leaving Israel out of the equation but let's take one step at a time).

The fact is, if the US took these steps, Big Oil and Big Industry would freak out. But wouldnt' this be a better sacrifice than the trillions in military spending and thousands of lives lost?

To me those statistics look rather promising. One in six iraqis (16.66%) overall feel that security is bad because of US forces (34% of 49%). Thats far from the majority. Most iraqis claim their life is better now and most are optimistic about it getting better. Only 1 in 10 iraqis feel that the primary goal should be to get rid of US forces.

i agree much of it is promising but much it is telling also. look at these ones:

•Since the war, how do you feel about the way in which the U.S. and other coalition forces have carried out their responsibilities? Very good job .......... 10% Quite a good job .......... 27% Quite a bad job .......... 19% Very bad job .......... 40%

•Do you support or oppose the presence of coalition forces in Iraq? Strongly support .......... 13% Somewhat support .......... 19% Somewhat oppose .......... 21% Strongly oppose .......... 44%

•How has the security situation changed since Iraq regained sovereignty in June 2004?

Those saying it's better Better: 41% Don't know: 10%

Who is responsible for the improvement? Iraqi police .......... 28% Government .......... 22% Iraqi army .......... 12% Security forces .......... 10%

Those saying it's worse Worse: 31% Same: 18%

Who is responsible for the deterioration? Americans .......... 34% Government .......... 30% Terrorists .......... 17% Iraqi police .......... 5%

I think these stats are telling in how american troops are precieved.

And thats why so many iraqis voted in this election. Thats why the sunni turn out was so high. To vote against the occupation. I say things are getting better and to let things run their course. and like I said before and you pointed out again. only 1 in 6 iraqis think the deterioration in security is because of the americans. Far from a majority. I can understand why people could oppose the presence of US forces. But overall I think its promising, it is far from perfect.

When did the war against Iraq start? Who started it? I am sure we answer those questions differently, and I think that explains our differing views. Just like we came to the aid of Europe in WWII to stop the aggression of Hitler, I think we came to the aid of the Middle East (Kuwait invasion by Iraq) to stop the aggression of Sadaam. Perhaps the current Bush has the resolve to get the job done.

•Do you support or oppose the presence of coalition forces in Iraq? Strongly support .......... 13% Somewhat support .......... 19% Somewhat oppose .......... 21% Strongly oppose .......... 44%

that looks like 65% of Iraqi's don't want the US there. Maybe they should have included on the ballot this week "do you want the US to leave now?" and then we would see what democracy would say.

I never thought of that question. It would of been very interesting to see what they would of said, although the poll question you quoted seems like they probably would of said 'yes.' Funny how one of the most relevant questions didn't make the list.

The iraqis just got to vote on their parlimentary representatives. I'm sure many of them ran on the platform that they will do all they can to get the US forces out as soon as possible. I'll bet those people got a lot of votes. Thats how its supposed to work and thats how we will leave soonest. Suicide bombings won't get us out of there any faster, and it appears (as sunnis decided to vote rather than boycott) that the democratic approach is working.

I agree with this. I just wonder if the US is ready for real democracy.

What if an election brings to power a government that is Anti-US or that wants to Nationalize the oil fields?

Just speculation. The opposite can be said as well.

What will the insurgents do if a pro-US government is elected that gives *very* favourable to concessions to US led Big Oil?

A. I guess we'd have no choice but to leave then. As long as the system put in place works, we can't complain.

B. I'd assume it would remain bloody, possibly escalate.

What will probably end up happening is somewhere in between.

I don't get the connection between what I wrote and the survey question. But, I bet if you surveyed Germans after WWII they would have been in favor of US troops going home too.

I'm not getting involved with the majority of this discussion; in my opinion it's kind of played out. What I will say is, in response to the above, is that if the Iraqi government tries to limit US access to the oil fields, I suspect someone with olive skin and a sweet pair of sunshades in Baghdad is going to be getting a flaming fist of fury shoved up their asses. After the ungodly amount of US $$$ that are flowing in this whole war in Iraq, I strongly suspect that the US and/or US interests will have superduper #1 access to those oil fields.

Charlatan, I agree that it's really funny to me that recently, I haven't heard nearly as much discussion of Middle Easten oil as I do all this stuff about terrorism and Sadaam giving everyone wedgies all the time and balsa wood fliers that could have destroyed North American civilization with mustard gas slathered dirty nuclear bombs, or whatever the argument was supposed to have been of how Iraq posed a tangible thread to the security of the United States.

It seems to me that the only credible reasons to justify a US invasion of Iraq originate and end with concerns over geo-political stability of the mid east, the perceived need of the US to have a stronger military presence in the area, and the need to assure preferential access to oil supplies; which really is one and the same as the need for a stronger military presence. News Flash. We're not really pulling out any time soon.

All this crap about moral reasons to go in, and the evil nature of the former regime, and operation enduring freedom etc. would seem laughable if someone pulled them out in an overnight game of Axis and Allies or the equivalent strategy game; yet somehow we're supposed to buy them in a real live war strategy situation. I mean, I assume our military / government leaders played Risk! or chess or something when they were kids? I just don't understand the position that the US is actually going around the world invading places and spending tres muchos de la denaros because there are bad men hurting people's freedoms all over the place. It just doesn't add up when you consider it in context of what people are doing all over the world, and what our response usually is. The only thing that makes Iraq anything other than a shitty desert that we would see on National Geographic is the assload of oil in the ground, but somehow that's not our chief objective over there?

Pigglet... that's exactly what I am getting at but it seems to be the biggest blind spot as far as the US media and the US mainstream discussion of this invasion is concerned.

I think there is plenty of reasons for the US to be concerned about the instability of their supply of oil. Israel aside, oil is the only reason they have ever had for going into the Middle East. And along with the question of Israel, the US precense in the Middle East is the only reason there are those in the Arab/Persian world with a urge to kill Americans en masse.

The anger generated there hasn't always been the US (and other western) government's fault either... the US oil interests did a lot to screw the region and build a foundation of resentment.


I've suggested before that the way to truly solve the Middle Eastern problem is for the US to wean itself from oil. It will be expensive to do this but it can be done. Imagine if the money used to fight this war had been used instead to develop alternative sources of fuel (not get rid of oil completely just reduce the need of oil).

Certain lobbys in the US would never stand for it.

Agreed. It just seems like a synthetic discussion when we're forced to discuss whether or not some guy from Iraq tried to buy yellowcake from some other guy in Niger, or whether it's possible that some people who might have known some Iraqis could have met potential agents of AlQueda in Poland or whatnot...and I keep thinking to myself that all of that is only marginally related to any decision we're in Iraq. I also get tired of the discussion about "faulty" information from the CIA and friends. I think its far more likely that we had the very best information possible, and that despite some possibly conflicting reports, we were very far from 100% sure of any *WMD" jazz, and I find the notion that I was supposed to scared shitless by the army that we "let's rolled" with some shock & awe in about three days. I think its far more likely that the powers that be (I personally include Congress and many of our wealthy cooporate entities here as well...our gov't. is very far from separated from business interests) knew more or less exactly what they were getting into, and chose to do so anyways. I think that conversation is far more interesting, but we are discouraged from having it lest we be branded traitors and low down dirty dogs.

If the facts are that Americans aren't willing to give up some of their amenities and lifestyle, then yes - we have to have access to escalating amounts of oil. That is directly contrary to the whole "peak oil" realties, and I know for a fact that it's not only hippies that are talking about this. I spoke with people working at US national labs that are having the same conversations, with the same projected data from the US geological survey. I think that the discussion of whether or not the US government has an obligation or credible moral grounds to secure access to the energy source that drives our economy and civilization is much more interesting that a conversation about whether or not bad people are doing bad things in foreign countries. They are. They have been, and it's easy to find documented cases of it where we don't do shit. It seems to me that Iraq is more a question of US oil interests & related economic situations, and Iraq being lowman on the totem pole whom everyone, from Al Queda to Britain to France, could agree they disliked. It was just a question of how to deal with them, and who would take advantage of the situation first. The US did. I don't personal support the decision to do so, but I respect the position that we had to based on securing our access to necessary supplies much more than the argument that we had to because Sadaam was the boogieman.