Questions for debate:

Do you believe mistakes were made in the invasion and occupation of Iraq?

Do you believe that we can rectify these mistakes in order to achieve "success" in Iraq? Please define "success"

How can we rectify these mistakes OR why is it impossible for us to rectify them?

Do you believe mistakes were made in the invasion and occupation of Iraq?

I think everyone acknowledges that they were, including the President himself.

Do you believe that we can rectify these mistakes in order to achieve "success" in Iraq? Please define "success"

How can we rectify these mistakes OR why is it impossible for us to rectify them?

Success is defined to me as driving out al-Qa'ida and fostering conditions that make it unlikely for them, or any other international terrorist group, to return to the country and use it as a base of operations the way they used Afghanistan. And that's in the process of being accomplished. AQ is on the run in Iraq, and local Sunni tribes are stepping up to the plate to provide for their own security without having to depend on AQ.

Do you believe mistakes were made in the invasion and occupation of Iraq?

Of course- first off, the main blame lands with the slightly less than half of the nation that voted for GW- I don't think we should forget or forgive them for that alone

The first mistake was invading, the second was staying- hard to recover from those two alone- not to mention the fact we did it for no good reason, with no exit strategy, and, even worse, in the end, actually CREATED an Al'Quaida presence that NEVER existed before- (Blackstone conveniantly leaves this part out- we leave, there is no more Al-quaida- that org is there ONLY because we are there- there is no other explanation- at all- deal with it)

Do you believe that we can rectify these mistakes in order to achieve "success" in Iraq? Please define "success"

It is hard to say at this point- I would say no, because we have gone on too long- once again, we have the poeple that voted for GW to blame for this war, in the 04 election, because we allowd that moron to compound the mistakes that were already made- had we elected ANYBODY else- and I am including, oh, brain dead teenagers that have been locked in a closet thier whole lives- it is possible we may have been able to start the ball rolling to fix this sometime in early 05- now, closing on 4 years later- I don't think we can do a darn thing about them. We don't have the resources anymore, we have lost the battle for hearts and minds, and everything has been allowed to spiral out of control- despite even being given a face saving "out" by the ISG.


How can we rectify these mistakes OR why is it impossible for us to rectify them?

I don't think we can rectify them at this point- it is just too late, we lost the opportunities that were listed in the ISG report.

The surge has failed- not militarily- but in it's main scope and focus- to start a political solution by giving groups "breathing room" to forge a political solution.

The goal posts have been moved several times by the right- such as Blackstone's very laughable idea that it is "al quaida" that somehow is some major threat to the US in some way, instead of what it is- a local phenomenon created by our very presence.

That is the other mistake as well- we NEVER had a clear definition of what a "win" was- no person on the right that supports this war and GW has EVER been able to really define, in clear, easily defined goals- what a "win" was. Just try to nail them down- and they say silly things like "oh, when Al-Quaida leaves Iraq, then we would have accomplished our goals"- which is beyond silly even- or "when the we have a stable goverment" - at least that one was a little step away from insane double speak with no basis in reality.

The bottom line is- the minute we leave, there is going to be a islamic goverment that is probably going to be very, very hostile to the US, considering, you know, we have killed over 650k of thier poeple, laid waste to thier country, and created millions of refugees.

But of course, Ted and Blackstone will probably tell us they hate us " because we represent freedom" - you know, because they should KNOW that we didnt' MEAN to kill off a million or so of thier countrymen (by the time we get out of there) they should understand that it was just "collateral damage" and that we were just trying to make thier lives a little better

If you're gonna accuse someone of moving the goal posts, you might want to point out where that person has said something different in the past from what he's currently saying. My position has been the same all along.


As though being a "local phenomenon" somehow doesn't make it a threat? It was a "local phenomenon" in Afghanistan also. Do you think we shouldn't have been fighting them there either?

How about the FACT that no such organization existed BEFORE we went there?

It is because we had this debate before- I will have to look it up, probably in archives, where we have asked folks to define a "win"- guess what- those that think we need to stay there- simply can't give a clear, concise definition of what is a "win" , with a benchmark that says " okay, we did it, now lets leave".

And that somehow proves that they're not a threat? You're not making any sense.


You could make the same criticism of the war in Afghanistan. So does that mean we shouldn't be fighting there either?

No, Al-Quaida in Iraq (AQI) has NEVER been a threat, in any way, shape or form, to anyone on US soil- EVER. It is only there because we created them by our very presence- we go away, they go away, and AQI will cease to exist. There is 0 evidence whatsoever that AQI has ANY credible threat to the US on US soil at this or any other time.

BTW- you can see here:

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...13824&st=40

where Ted last "cut and run" from a debate he was clearly just repeating the same old tired talking points of the GW regime- and not making any progress. That is what happens when you try to fight reality Blackstone- and why most of the country is starting to see the light here- we can't win this war now- and we are starting to realize it.

You see how Ted said " we don't want a Islamofascist regime" or some such- well, that benchmark will have to be done away with, don't you think? It is pretty clear, that no matter what, it is going to be an anti-US regime with Iranian ties.

GWs and those who voted for this war have squandered american lives, american money, and american moral high ground, so we could establish another corrupt islamic based regime.

Good work there Blackstone!

Interesting point. If the reasons for entering Afghanistan and Iraq were the same (which they weren't), then I would say a qualified yes. Afghanistan has an order of magnitude fewer troops involved; that means its resolution is an order of magnitude less pressing than Iraq. Of course, Afghanistan doesn't have a widespread entrenched insurgency nor is the sectarian violence even remotely comparable to Iraq. Finally, the Taliban's Afghanistan did indeed have a direct link to Al Qaeda unlike Iraq.

Let's not forget that Bin Laden is still out there: 6 years after Dubya declared he would be "brought to justice". If nothing else, the one unarguable reason to stay in Afghanistan is to get Bin Laden. 100+ thousand troops in Afghanistan could have greatly helped in this search. Unfortunately, they've been stuck in a quagmire.

That's a statement that could seriously stand to be backed up, given your own ringing endorsement of the Iraq Study Group report (PDF). Just go to that page and do a word search on "Qaeda", and it becomes very clear that they see AQI as an integral branch of AQ, and very much a threat to be dealt with. So where's your evidence that they're no threat at all?


Fascinating theory. Afghanistan was a test ground for it. Did all the groups that were created by Russian presence cease to exist after the Russians withdrew?

You see, this is what happens when you let ideology get in the way of reality.



What if the reasons for actually being there currently are the same?


You mean unlike AQ in Iraq? Seriously?

Normally, I would define "success" as normal, friendly relations with a democratic country, with or without the rose petals. Now, I'd settle for Iraq taking on any stable incarnation. Who wouldn't simply turn back the clock and leave Saddam Hussein in power, given the chance?

As incredibly damaging as our presence has been in Iraq, I still believe that all mistakes can be rectified with enough time. You would like to re-create the magic of the Marshall Plan and somehow transform the Iraqi people into US-adoring capitalists, but seeing as how we were the unprovoked aggressors in this war, I think it will take both an admission of wrongdoing and a genuine demonstration that our policies have changed to reflect that. And to that end, I think it's time to consider handing over Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld to the Iraqi people to stand trial. As a show of good faith.

Who's with me!?!

Do you believe mistakes were made in the invasion and occupation of Iraq?

No doubt about it, mistakes were made. I don't believe fighting the war was one of those mistakes however. Our timing and the level of troops we committed were arguably the biggest mistakes.

Do you believe that we can rectify these mistakes in order to achieve "success" in Iraq? Please define "success"

Yes I do, we may already be on our way to success but only time will tell if the dropping violence levels persist in the long term and if this makes it easy enough for the Iraqi military to catch up to where they need to be. To me success is the fulfillment of all or most of the original goals stated by our gouvernment in 2003. The primary remaining goal is achieving a democratic Iraq that can sustain itself without our presence. We are years away from this and obviously have catchup to play in a number of areas, as does the Iraqi gouvernment.

How can we rectify these mistakes OR why is it impossible for us to rectify them?


Well I believe this nation can do anything actually. For example In May of 1961 John F. Kennedy said that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal of placing a man on the moon and safely returning him to the earth by the end of the decade. At the time we were arguably behind the Soviet Union in the area of space flight, and somewhere around 30% of the nation had confidence in the Apollo program. Yet by the end of the decade we achieved what many said couldn't be done.

Our own willpower will determine the outcome of this war, I'm convinced of it. If we lose it will be because we retreated. The way we rectify the mistakes we made in the past is by listening to the Generals on the ground. Most Ive read up on say this war is winnable but it will take us putting the time in possibly for several more years. I know not many here want to hear that, and some have given up hope on this war two years ago. When failure is met by more failure again and again it makes it easy to understand why so may have said, "no more". I really do hope we can get out of their soon, myself. The sooner the better but I do believe it should be after we win.

The invasion of Iraq was a mistake of the first magnitude; occupying the country compounded the error. The war is not winnable for the same reason our involvement in Vietnam failed - you cannot impose democracy on a people, however oppressed. Iraq has devolved into a civil war with our occupying forces in the middle; and in that position, we won’t win anyone’s hearts and minds. President Bush’s surge strategy (viz. “stay the course”) only continues his failed foreign policy on which we have foundered. A wise leader may make mistakes, but only a foolhardy one would persist in them.

Okay- since you seem not to be able to, you know, GET the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan- you see, Saddam had nothing to do with Al-Quaida, 9/11 or the war on terrorism- Afghanistan had this guy, you may have heard of him, went by the name of "Osama bin Laden"- perhaps you forgot about him- you know, he was the mastermind behind 9/11, I know most republicans and conservatives seemed to have forgotten about this guy, might want to go back and check the news from around october of 01- and there was this goverment entity, went by the name of "The Taliban" that was in power- and they were all cozy coazy with this Osama guy- who actually masterminded an attack on the US. Then we invaded that country, because, you know, there was this direct link and all.

Interestingly enough- no Iraq national has ever led an attack on US soil, only rebelling against US presense in Iraq.

Now, I don't doubt the possibility now that some grieving Iraqi may very well try or even accomplish an attack on US soil- but you see, that is what happens when you kill hundreds of thousand of poeple in a country you had no right to be in for the first place.

AQI is a direct threat to the other warring factions in Iraq, with the least resources. They will not last a week once we are gone. Then there will be no such thing as AQI.

Least resources, huh? No doubt you'll be backing that one up some time this lifetime. They've only been responsible for some of the most spectacular attacks in Iraq such as the al-Askari mosque bombings, but according to your authoritative statement supported by nothing, they're just so starved of resources.

There's also this article from the Times of London which showed them growing in strength in Western Iraq. I'll grant you, however, that that article is a few months old, before the "failed" surge had gotten fully underway. Since then, AQI has been very much on the run, so in that sense, they're getting to be less and less of a threat to us every day.


Remember now, you promoted the ISG report, so you should listen to what it has to say. Page 28: "Left unchecked, al Qaeda in Iraq could continue to incite violence between Sunnis and Shia. A chaotic Iraq could provide a still stronger base of operations for terrorists who seek to act regionally or even globally." But hey, what do they know? There's no way a bipartisan commission's thorough research could ever stand up to an off-the-cuff blanket statement from some anonymous Internet personage that's backed up by exactly nothing.

Actually, Invading Iraq is what happens when you let ideology get in the way of reality. The ideology being Bush's famous "domino theory" of democracy-building, and the reality being the lack of any real national security reason to invade Iraq.

Whether or not AQI or any other insurgent groups would go away once we pulled out won't be definitively answered until we actually do pull out. But that would be worth a try, since I can't think of a single similar situation in which the insurgents/rebels/terrorists/freedom fighters stopped chafing under the rule of the occupying force of their invaders.

Let me get this straight YOU are talking about someone "not backing something up"- the king of " I can't believe that study"

There is absolutely no credible evidence of AQI's existance prior to our invasion- we created it by our very presence- yes, they have the least manpower, and the least resources. It didn't take much resources to pull off 9/11, or the bombing of the Murrah building by Timothy McViegh and his fellow right wingers. A low tech but organized terrorist act is pretty much impossible to protect against. But to assume that they are some force in Iraq that will be able to attack the US- that is just republican posturing and chest thumping- like always.

No, I didn't agree with everything the ISG said- and in fact, I was critical of it because I still thought it was too little, too late, but it might have worked if our idiot in chief would have put away HIS ideology for a minute and listened to them- I still think we would have a civil war with no end in sight.

I would be far more concerned with Saudi funding of Al-Quaida than anything Iraq has to offer- but those guys seem to be untouchable in this-

Saudi Arabia is the #1 sponsor of terrorism on the planet- with the possible exception of the US (considering we have pretty much terrorized and razed and destabilized every country we have ever entered post Korean war) - yet, we are worried about some ephermal presence of AQI?

You need a reality check Blackstone- but then again, you have no dog in this fight either- just another "ra-ra" suuporter of the war, safe and secure in your office of whevrever you are.

Like NT and DTOM said- you support the war through on-line debates

hey- I believe you are a lawyer or something- means you have alot of dough- why not put your money where your mouth is? Sell your house, get rid of most of your earthly belongings and comforts, and donate the money to the US goverment to pay for the war on Iraq- that way- you would be ACTUALLY supporting the war on Iraq- of course, that would mean ACTUAL sacrifice on your parrt. Can't have that now, can we?

I'm going to start counting the number of times this line of questioning is brought up, this makes probably the 10th time in a week. I could just as easily tell Al Gore to stop flying in jets because he believes in human induced global warming, right? Sticking to the issues rather than the posters personal life is much more constructive wouldn't you say? Nobody claims that space enthusiast have to be astronauts in order to support space flight, am I right? Or even fund the space program for that matter. People have lives that go beyond their interest in politics and war in many cases CruisingRam that doesnt mean they cant take an interest in these things, and learn enough about them to become highly opinionated.

Try not to resort to generalizing about people you don't know. All that is really is a smear tactic, instead of debunking or addressing a persons comment specifically many people go after the posters credibility or fundamentals instead so that it becomes unnecessary to address the person in a more direct way. Afterall someone with low credibility presumably wouldn't be saying anything of importance anyway, and I believe this is what you would like people to assume about posters that don't share your stance regarding the war. How did you put it? Just another "ra-ra" supporter of the war? All child's play if you ask me. Not that sarcasm is against the law, but come on some of the things I'm hearing are downright goofy lately.

OK, so in other words, you think that the whole War on Terror is a wasted endeavor. That's fine if you want to think that, but for those of us who see things differently, denying al-Qa'ida bases of operation is a fairly logical strategy. That would especially mean denying them a base right in the middle of the Middle East. Since the ISG and other serious observers have concluded that AQ has been poised to do that in Iraq should we fail, and since you've offered nothing beyond your own personal opinion to counter that (accompanied by plenty of ad hominem diversionary tactics), the conclusion pretty much points to itself.

With the exception of , you know, the ACTUAL poeple that attacked the US- yes, the entire WOT is another excercise in global stupidity by the US. We have not made America any safer- we just stirred the nest, wasted lives and resources, and peeved off whole generations of poeple by killing off or displacing families into the MILLIONS now.

We are not denying Al-Quaida anything- we just created the ideal conditions for them to thrive in a place they never were in the past- very conveniant- go into a country with 0 terroristic ties to the poeple that harmed us, then claim we can only leave when that org WE CREATED BY OUR VERY PRESENCE is well, stupid to say the least.

But the civil war- which we also created the perfect conditions for in the first place- is doing a pretty good job of wiping out AQI all by themselves, without much need of help from the US.

So you are trying to say, that if the US left tomorow- that teh Sunni's and Shi-ites that hate them are suddenly going to leave them alone to prosper, because, you know, we are gone now?

Ya, that makes sense

Call it ad-hominem if you like- but your side called those unpatriotic, and IIRC you are saying it is lack of patriotism of the media and what not that is the blame for us not prevailing in this fiasco- that we embolden terrorists by our questioning the motives and planning that did or didn't go into this war-

but it is high time for guys like you and net to put up or shut up, same with the others that 'support" this war-

More like the Shi'ites will go back to slaughtering Sunnites, and the Sunnites will then turn to the people who, however hated, appear to have the best chance of offering them protection - just as they have in the past.

Remember, nobody in Afghanistan liked the Taliban either. They tolerated them because they offered protection.

Do you believe mistakes were made in the invasion and occupation of Iraq?

You better believe it. Failure to engage legitimate dissident groups prior to the invasion. Failure to stand up even a figurehead Iraqi government from a coalition of anti-Ba'athists. Failure to stop looting. US forces and diplomats installing themselves in the Saddam palace complexes like the new Pasha in town, the list goes on...........

Do you believe that we can rectify these mistakes in order to achieve "success" in Iraq? Please define "success"

Success as we define will not be achieved, because the Iraqi's do not want our vision of success. And we are fighting a half war with Jaysh Al-Mahdi. JAM is like the IRA; they have the militant wing and the political office. In JAM's case, their Sinn Fein is the Office of the Martyr Sadr (OMS). Either we negotiate with all parties in accordance with our withdrawal, or we fight JAM on all fronts, including the OMS. Until either happens, we are just perpetuating a continuous cycle of chaos.

How can we rectify these mistakes OR why is it impossible for us to rectify them?

The only course left is diplomacy. Round table negotiations with the key players and the UN or the Gulf Cooperation Council.

Um, you do know that the head of the Taliban and Osama were, you know, relatives by marriage and all, right? Tad bit more cozy than anything we have seen or heard in Iraq.

Problem is- you just keep repeating the same talking points, going over the same lame territorey, that got us into this mess in the first place. You have folks like ted that still believe that Saddam had WMD - (maybe syria has them- or is it Iran now- I can't keep up with your folks right wing theories anymore)

and that is why we have all these problems- you guys seem to think that doing or saying the same thing over and over is going ot make the situation any better.

Look at net- he seems to have this wierd belief that we can recruit, oh, 200k or so more new soldiers in the next year or so if we just spent the money or some such nonsense- ya, poeple are just lined up around the block to sign up to go to a dead end mission in a sandbox- can't convince him otherwise.

Blackstone- your poeple screwed the pooch on this one, and is grasping at straws to just hold out long enough for another prez to have to deal with this, and hope they can pin the blame on him/her.

It actually might work- after all, there were poeple out there that were gullible enough to believe the swift water liars-

but it is pretty clear we have already lost, WE created an enviroment for AQI to thrive, adn now we are in some surreal catch-22 that says if we stay, there will be thousands of more recruits to "the cause" and, according to you, if we go, those poeple will now threaten the US somehow.

I don't doubt that there will be some AQI that will possibly be a threat to the US sometime in the future- but I highly doubt that our presence there will have any impact one way or the other to keep that attack from happening- pandora's box has already been opened.

As DTOM has pointed out- AQI is not even the focus, really- it is JAM etc.

There might be some shifthing alliances when we leave- but how is that going to change what is goig on there now in any measurable way?

DTOM has probably put it best- the best we can do is bug out now, before Sadr calls off the cease fire.

Wow, major revelation there. Except that I was talking about their relationship with the locals in Afghanistan. Anything but cozy. Same goes for the Sunnites in Iraq. If left to be massacred by Shi'i death squads, their history shows that they could likely turn to AQI again if there's no alternative.


And to think that only 8 hours ago you were saying:


Oh that's right - I'm the one "moving the goal posts".

Perhaps you simply misunderstood me- or are being intentionally silly- no one can say for 100% certainy ANYTHING in the future- we just know that AQI has NEVER been a threat in the past to any citizen on US soil- at the worst, they were a threat to soldiers on the ground and other iraqis- but, as was also pointed out, has become homegrown since we landed there.

the Afghani's had no choice but to accept Osama- because the leader of the country, the military strongman, accepted them. No such thing has happened in Iraq, before, during or after Saddam.

Yes, some sleeper cell of AQI, in the future, possibly harm the US. But, then again, we have a higher chance of getting hit by an Asteroid- literally.

Your chance of being harmed by ANY terrorist in the US is statistically approaching 0. But it could happen I suppose. Do monkeys fly out of YOUR butt often?


http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060901faco...sent-enemy.html

If al Qaeda operatives are as determined and inventive as assumed, they should be here by now. If they are not yet here, they must not be trying very hard or must be far less dedicated, diabolical, and competent than the common image would suggest.

and:

The results of policing activity overseas suggest that the absence of results in the United States has less to do with terrorists' cleverness or with investigative incompetence than with the possibility that few, if any, terrorists exist in the country. It also suggests that al Qaeda's ubiquity and capacity to do damage may have, as with so many perceived threats, been exaggerated. Just because some terrorists may wish to do great harm does not mean that they are able to.


But while keeping such potential dangers in mind, it is worth remembering that the total number of people killed since 9/11 by al Qaeda or al Qaeda­like operatives outside of Afghanistan and Iraq is not much higher than the number who drown in bathtubs in the United States in a single year, and that the lifetime chance of an American being killed by international terrorism is about one in 80,000 -- about the same chance of being killed by a comet or a meteor. Even if there were a 9/11-scale attack every three months for the next five years, the likelihood that an individual American would number among the dead would be two hundredths of a percent (or one in 5,000).
There is little to no threat from Al-Quaida, from ANY country- inflicting any real damage, at least not to what fear mongers like yourself seem to think. It is like school shootings- awful, yes, but rarer than hen's teeth, and certainly doesn't need some dumb knee jerk reactions like arming the teachers as a solution to a problem that is miniscule, to say the least.

No one can say for 100% certain that AQI will NEVER be succesful in launching another attack- it is just highly unlikely, about on the order of monkeys flying out of your butt Blackstone- whether we stay or go in Iraq.

the idea that we need to stay in Iraq to protect us from Terrorist attacks on US soil by Al-quada is laughable at best, though it will be pretty funny to see those monkey's fly out of your butt.

You still haven't gotten into how the "military strongman" - i.e., the Taliban - came to power. It was because they offered the Afghan people protection - same thing that AQI offered and may again still offer the Sunnites in Iraq.


Unless they get a hold of some weapon of mass destruction. Maybe you'd argue that there's no real chance of that, in which case I would expect you'd also be against the war in Afghanistan. Like I said, that's fine if you want to think that, but plenty of others don't think it's wise to rest on that assumption.

There is no assumption that it is more likely that monkeys will indeed fly out of your butt before AQI has a succesful attack on US soil.

I think we ought to pay far more attention to lightening strikes, comet disasters and women never marrying after 40, all much worse odds than a terrorist strike.

That- and you had best head off that monkey problem- it is very immenent that they will be flying!

The key difference that I think you aren't giving credit to is that the Sunni tribes are rooted in clannish nationalism, they will no longer fight or ally with an entity that wishes to tear apart the fabric of their society. You assume that since they share the same general flavor of Islam, they are natural allies. Nothing I've seen in classified reports lends any basis to speculation that your fear will be realized.


OpEd Link

The answers are as follows: yes, no, and we can rectify these mistakes beginning in January 2009 when George W. Bush leaves office. Unless of course he pulls a Musharraf and proclaims martial law.

Meanwhile, we all can enjoy The President spending some quality time with some of the soldiers whose lives he helped destroy.

Why is this man smiling?

As usual, taking a shot at the President. I do think that the idea of smiling standing next to a man so badly burned is awful, but who knows what the context of the photo is.
Of course, the journalist makes "news" by taking that snap....

Martial law? Good job Michael Moore.

Ok- down to the debate.
The only way that we'll get out of Iraq ok is to set clear cut political objectives, and allow our Military to carry them out. Congress being in the middle of something they don't understand is like hiring a plumber to build your cabinets. Sure- the plumber might know SOMETHING about cabinets, but they'll sure be ugly when they're done.

The war in Iraq has become ugly.

Let the professionals handle the job. Isn't that why we have them there? Furthermore, have a game plan on where the end zone is. Finally, make sure that the "end zone" is attainable by military presence. If not, find an attainable end zone.

What people will NEVER understand is that there is progress in Iraq. The problem is that we're viewed as occupiers, because ostensibly we are. Who wants their nation occupied? No one. Iraq's religious division and it's impending civil war make it even more complicated.

So what does someone do? Maybe be a little more heavy handed. Maybe give the Iraqi government and its security forces an ultimatum. Maybe give the Marine Corps and Army Infantry more autonomy. I'm not sure, but this seems to have ONE major component of the Vietnam war... and that is Congress attempting to hold the purse strings to the war, and give orders by proxy.

We won every battle in Vietnam (well, arguably), but still had to leave with our tails tucked? Why? Because Congress's war of attrition, don't fight here, don't do that never worked.

Wars are fought for political reasons. We need to just figure out what they are and let the military do its job.

Aevens- you know, some of what you said makes sense- but you can NEVER win a war, without genocide, when the poeple don't want you there. Vietnam was lost not because of LBJs micromanagement, or Nixon's corruption, or bad generals, or congress- it was lost because the Vietnamese didn't want us there- we had to cancel elections because we figured out that HoChiMingh would win by a landslide.

Guess what? The poeple of Iraq were better off under Saddam. That is a tough pill to swallow- that the US occupiers are actually WORSE to the Iraqi poeple than Saddam Hussien.

That stings a patriot's pride, that we have killed more poeple BY OUR VERY PRESENCE that Saddam tried to do in a systematic fashion- and even though he was a monster, the poeple there were more prosperous and ACTUALLY SAFER than they are now.

There is no military solution to a civil war, and there is no political solution when the country hates our guys, at least not one an outsider can affect in any way. Vietnam has actually come around now Aevens- all on thier own. China came around on thier own too, so has Russia. They found the system that was stable for them.

We are actually making the security in Iraq, and heck, the whole world, far, far, far worse than it was prior to 2000.

The world was a bit warm perhaps. prior to 2000, but it wasn't on flames, and getting worse like now.

GW has shown the world how terribly awful the US can be on a global scale when we have an incompetent ideologue in power, that runs on a platform of fear- you know, the "if you elect a democrat the turrurists will get ya" so the vicious cycle of incompetance and denial continue. Same thing happened from LBJ to Nixon. It is not that the military is not doing it's job- it is that we are there for immoral or shaky reasons.

Any change we affect for the positive at this point will HAVE to be predicated on the idea that "we were wrong to even be here, now let's fix it based on a humble attitude and not based on discredited ideology"

I don't see the American poeple, unfortunately, as a groupthink, being able to make that humbling conclusion.

With that admission, we would also get a hell of a lot more help.

For all that preaching the religious right does, they listen to dang litle of it. Be humble, ask forgiveness for horrible past mistakes, repent, and do the right thing.

NOTHING is possible in a positive direction until that happens.

Then, we can listen to DTOM types on the ground, update strategy for dealing with JAM and such as that, letting the Iraqi poeple pick thier own leaders, and give them a strong deadline of how long the US will be there- and begin a phased withdrawal based on sound military tactics, and, if the rest of the world wants a chunk of it- hey, we will facilitate thier entr into Iraq with whatever they need to accomplish the mission and let them give it a stab.

Though, it would be nice to help pay for the effort by snatching all the personal fortunes of everyone in this admin that is an appointee at the cabinent level. and everyone that got "no bid" contracts- all the boards of directors for all of haliburton for example- and use that as compensation to the Iraqi poeple.

that would also be "justice"- something the US is supposed to stand for.

Aevens- do we claim to stand for "Truth, Justice and the American Way"-

then it is high time we live up to it.

Telll the truth, visit justice upon those that did this to us, and then help with a humble heart, with a withdrawal in date.

You analogies are ludicrous. We didn’t win in Vietnam because we never fought it like a real “war”. Idiot, moron LBJ just threw away American lives. And I agree the premise of the war was flawed as well.

In Iraq the majority of the people who risked their lives to to disagree that they would be better of under Saddam.


.


Is that right? So a madman with WMD who wanted more in the middle of ½ the world oil who had attacked a neighbor to get more oil was better. You have to be joking.

What was your plan for the region? Just keep getting shot at or relieve Saddam of Sanctions and let him get back to full WMD production?

Wait - did we finally find WMDs in Iraq? Awesome! Why didn't anyone alert the media?

I think he was talking about Saddam and Kuwait John. Saddam had WMD, he used them remember? Look back at my Saddam/WMD forum because I explain it a great deal there. The proof is on the deaths of 1000's of men women and children, in many cases breaking practicaly every rule of the Geneva convention. You would be surprised at some of the things he has done. Not only did he kill within the context of war, but 1000's of the deaths he was responsible for were achieved using cowardly tactics. I pointed all that out in my post as clearly as I could. That man was nothing short of an Animal, and he did have WMD.

I know all about Saddam's use of chemical weapons on Iran, the Kurds, etc. Everyone does. But that is ancient history. We ruined their army in the Gulf War, and in the intervening dozen or so years we weakened Saddam further with sanctions and weapons inspections. And it looks like it worked, because we still haven't found any WMDs.

No argument here that Saddam was a bad guy, right up to the very end. But he wasn't the imminent threat to America in 2003 that Bush made him out to be. We have spent billions of dollars and thousands of lives and, so far, have only managed to further destabilize the region. And we still haven't caught Bin Laden.

We killed over 2 million poeple in Vietnam with our war. There was no way to win it- there never was. Unless of course- you are all for genocide?

In situations like Iraq and Vietnam- there is NO military victory possible without the added benefit if genocide- you simply have to kill off enough of the base population and bring in your own poeple in order to win- there is no other way.

Yep, would have continued the strategy we had indefinately- it worked.

I don't give a rat's fanny about Kuwait- he could have murdered every single ethnic kuwaiti in that country wouldn't have been worth one American life. Kuwait is as an evil regime as Saddams or Saudi's- in fact, they are related to the Saudis. Kuwait is one of those countries and ethnicities that didn't deserve a country of thier own, and the citizens to this day are stil the miinority in thier country- being outnumbered by non- citizens.

They are an islamic oppressive constitutional monarchy along pretty much the same lines as Saudi Arabia.

If we wanted to fee people and stop oppression, we would have dropped a big ol' nuke right on the mosques and royal family of Saudi Arabia- and done the whole world a favor- not to mention, you know, get back at the ACTUAL poeple that financed 9/11?

There is only one way to win militarily in Vietnam or Iraq- genocide.

And you have to have a nation that is okay with genocide.

Thank god there are democrats and non-republicans, because republicans are pretty okay with genocide these days it seems.

Oh yeah, and torture.

Um, what was the difference between the republican party and Saddam's bath party again? Facial hair?

By military standards all the "mission" objectives were met, as defined. The stated purpose for deployment was to insure that Saddam did not use "weapons of mass destructions" either himself or by proxy of some terrorist network. Saddam and his despotism have been defeated, no weapons were able to be used, whether they existed or not is simply a moot point at this point in history. The "war" was won in a matter of weeks. Was there really any doubt that some 3rd world nation could stand up face to face with our military? The "peace", on the other hand, is a totally different animal. Yes, mistakes were made. The most obvious was allowing the "politicians" to micro-manage the aftermath of military victory. With a proven formula already on the books, and deployed with great success after WW11 in Japan, this was indeed a mistake of management. The military should have been allowed to rule under "marshal law" with strict curfews enforced while allowing the due process of democracy to unfold with the rule of law by proxy of our US constitution. After the elections were held the process could have been amended to meet local customs and standards. But hindsight is indeed 20/20. The process was "microwaved" in hopes of a "quick fix", when history tells us, anything worthwhile takes time and patience. Gains are being made, and ultimately goals will be meet. I am of the strong opinion that having boots on the ground under somewhat stable conditions is not an option but a requirement in the modern world in which we now live. So the question is moot, its not can we have success, WE MUST HAVE SUCCESS. RD

Picture this totally imaginary scenario, and consider the question:

One of our - strike that - one of Bush's goals was to get rid of Saddam Hussein. (Saddam remaining in power wasn't even an option, apparently, because he was in power before the invasion, and posed no imminent threat to the US, either through WMDs or Al Qaida.) A good case can be made that the war was simply a war of aggression, started by the U.S. for no other reason than to topple a sovereign govenment our leader didn't like. So is it unreasonable to think that Iraqis will never come around to our way of thinking as long as George Bush is in power? And if Bush and his inner circle were to someday be found guilty of, say, starting this war on false pretenses, would it be so incredible to actually hand him and his cronies over to stand trial (or not) in Iraq, were diplomatic relations ever to become warmer? Would an international tribunal be more palatable?

This is not said in jest. Remember that America is just another country on this planet. Yes, we are on top now, but that is not a good enough reason to hold yourself, and your leaders, above the law. One of the ideas I cherish about America is that nobody here is above the law, but the last seven years have shaken those beliefs quite a bit.

If that show of faith by the American people were the key to ending the war and starting normal diplomatic relations with Iraq, shouldn't it be considered? Or are America's leaders above being held responsible?

**Before anyone starts the inevitable pro-Bush attack, I'm just asking a theoretical question here. The question is about the possibility of rectifying mistakes if those particular mistakes were indeed made.**

I suppose one could look at it like you have chosen to.....if one wants to ignore the true history that led up to the conflict, just depends on what type of "political" agenda that one is trying to build upon. But, I would say that after a decade and a half of ignoring the cease fire treaty and "no fly" zone requirements along with breaching 14 different UN resolutions along with the facts as such that he (Saddam) held open animosity toward the US and held them directly responsible for his position and had not shown that he no longer possessed the methodology nor the will to use weapons capable of killing in mass numbers, YEA, I suppose I can see your point, if I wore blinders and looked just in one direction.....that which pointed toward the whitehouse in 08. Never mind, that one of our larger cities had just been attacked with several thousand of our citizens still warm in their graves, and the fact that Saddam still led the inspectors around in circles and chose to hold his card down that suggested that he might still have the capacity to inflict more loss of life inside our borders by supporting terrorism by proxy has he had a history of in the past. It could be deemed selfish to want to protect our citizens and our way of life from theological despotism in the form of radical Islam.......if you chose to take the side of our foes. RD

Of course, you would also have to have blinders on, and possibly be brain damaged, to think that "attack against one of our major cities" had anything to do with Iraq, in any way, shape or form, and that there were no WMDs.

Iraq had nearly 0 stake in "terrorism by proxy"- our greatest threats STILL come from Saudi Arabia- where the most funding for Al-quaida STILL come from, and oh yeah, what about OBL ?

We have an entire world that pretty much thinks America is a far more evil and immoral force for evil than Saddam ever was- and, in fact, at this point in our history- the most evil and damaging regime in the world is in America right now.

Saddam has not even come close to killing as many Iraqis in his entire 30 odd years of rule than we did in 4 short years.

It is selfish, indeed, even evil to pimp "protecting our citizens and way of life" as a reason for invading Iraq- and even unpatriotic. In fact, i would even say you hate America if you believe we should be in Iraq- because of the immeasurable damage it has done to our military, our nation, our unity and our economy.

Red Devil- why do you hate America so much?

The funniest of the lies you just posted? That Iraq is "radical islam" - under Saddam, it was one of the few SECULAR goverments in the region.

Really funny- in a sad way.

The question was, are American leaders above the law, and what effect that could have on ever rectifying the Iraq problem? If I read your answer correctly, you seem to be saying that Bush is indeed above the law, because if you murder a murderer, then you are not guilty of murder yourself. Is that close?

BTW, which one of our larger cities did Saddam attack?

Bagdad

First no one said that Saddam was responsible for the attack on US soil, but attacked we were and by a radical Islamic theology that gestates in that same region. The facts were as such that the US was in no mood to take a chance that he would continue to support terrorism as he had a history of doing, along with running the "bluff" that he just might have more weapons stored or hidden in different counties. Along with the fact that he had and still harbored wanted terrorists in his country and gave rewards to the families of suicide bombers for carrying out attacks against other democratic nations of that region. And at one time had made an attempt to hire a contract on our president. In fact, a history that was pointed out in great detail by one of the greatest scientific minds of our times, the inventor of the internet and the producer of an Inconvenient Lie, one Al Gore...the great. He made a 45 minute speak in 1992 placing blame on the then current administration for leaving a known terrorist at large with weapons of mass destruction and remaining a threat to international peace.....Saddam Hussein. Yet Saddam must have gotten religion during the Clinton administration for he was no longer deemed a threat to the US or anyone, despite the fact that Mr. Clinton threatened to do just what Mr. Bush was forced to do under his watch, take him out. Ain't politics grand, the way the facts of history change to fit ones political agenda, Often at the expense of We the People. www.youtube.com/watch?v=JE48XHKG64 RD

Bush was forced to take out Saddam Hussein? I think many of us would argue that he elected to do this rather than being forced to do so. One can argue that Iraq is and was an elective war.

You give Bush benefit of the doubt he simply doesn't deserve.

Let's get back to the real question here - can the Iraq mistakes be rectified, and if so, how? I'll try to make the scenario as palatable as I can so the Bushies don't get too upset and lose track of what we are asking here:

Let's suppose that in 2009, President Hillary Clinton presents Congress and the American people with evidence of North Korea's amazing progress in developing ballistic missiles that can reach America's Heartland, and that they are in fact aiming one of them directly at the George W. Bush Presidential Library. Americans, still heady from successfully installing a secular, democratic government in Iraq that has the rest of the Middle East following suit (and lowering oil prices in gratitude), get behind President Hillary's proposal to invade North Korea to stem the tide of radical Islam brewing there. America invades, and gets bogged down in a poorly planned occupation, costing hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives.

A few years later, Rush Limbaugh'