hmmm, why is it more difficult to instill democracy in a developing economy than it is to instill it in a utterly devastated economy that has been under the control of a nationalist/racist mentality for over a century?

Just wondering....

Probably because there are too many overlapping cultures.

You try to put a McDonalds or an OutBack SteakHousein a country of citizens who don't eat meat because of their religion (i take muslims don't eat meat)

Also, how do you know these people will enjoy stuff from GAP or NIKE? I read an article about Afghanis before the Taliban took over and they wore jeans, Nike sneakers, mini-skirts, etc. Can you see a civilization like iraq which has had a strict dress code adapt to having a GAP in Baghdad?

Whereas, in a country, say North Korea, they don't have a religion that bans meat, so McDonalds will pop up quickly in Pyongyang & a GAP as well

I hope this made sense

Ok, here's my ten pennies worth.

If you are going to go against the UN, and against the wishes of your own people. (Australia, Spain and Greece in particular)

If you are going to set back international relations by years.

If you are going to bend to the farthest extreme the treaties under which you are bound and the people of your country expect you to abide by.

If you are going to conduct a pre-emptive strike against a nation that already has weapons inspectors and crippling sanctions.

Then you had better get it right.

I don't claim to be a military genius but it is my view and what my Prime minister indicated would happen) (in sweeping statements only -sorry! ):

This is how in the most basic terms I thought the war would pan out

The British and US governments would, at the very start of operations send in special units to takedown and destroy the stashes of WMD Saddam has been storing.

The coalition’s strikes are based on intelligence which they had been keeping from general release to protect their sources. (The 'evidence' they used in the run up to war was less than convincing to say the least. Especially Colin Powell’s address and the plagiarised-out-of-date Downing Street document)

Once the war was won, on a wave of new found optimism, the liberated Iraqis help rebuild their shattered country with water and electricity being the priority.

With the weapons found and Iraq on the mend the war, no matter how risky and against international law can at least be justified.

And this how I see (again in my basic terms ) it actually turned out:

Instead of immediately securing the stashes of WMDs we secure the oil fields instead. And almost immediately start handing out huge construction contracts to US firms.

It turns out that we had no more evidence about the location of WMD at all.

Water and electricity are still in a terrible state months later. The goodwill of the Iraqi population fades quickly as the hot summer, looting, and heavy handed actions of the occupying forces creates a climate of fear and, in some cases, hatred resulting in an increase in lethal attacks on coalition forces.

Already the members of the Iraqi council set up to work with the Americans feel like they have no real input into the future of Iraq. (One has already resigned citing these reasons)

Over three months later, not only are no WMDs found but the coalition is now calling on the UN they treated with so little respect to come in and help clear up the mess they've made.


Granted Sadam is out of power, and good riddance. But this has no bearing on the case for justifying the Iraqi war (certainly not in Britain). The war was fought because the WMDs presented such an immense danger we had to take them out immediately before the western world was ravaged.

Clearly this isn't true. Therefore (to me) the war was unjustified.

Come on, you know there's no such thing as legalized murder. By definition, murder is killing that isn't sanctioned by law. You cannot have legalized murder.

By that token, you can't be accusing Saddam of murder either, since he made the laws in Iraq and I certainly don't think he's going to declare what he was doing to be wrong.

Wow, that's a stretch of logic.

Just because you are a ruler, doesn't mean you can't break the laws. Of course, since Saddam controlled enforcement of those laws, he was immune to punishment.

I have seen you post the comparison of UNMOVIC to UNSCOM before. I have to call you on it here. WHY, exactly, do you think UNMOVIC did a better job? ALL of our documented hard WMD evidence was gathered through UNSCOM. This is the very reason so many posters here are questioning 'why no evidence after 1998?' Because UNMOVIC TOOK OVER! Could you explain, please, your reasoning as to why they were better? Can you cite ANY evidence they gathered at all?

Edited to add: No, I don't think that invading Iraq was the right decision. However, many of the posters here seem to have forgotten (or never knew) that we were in a decade long air occupation over Iraq. This didn't happen overnight when the evil Bush suddenly decided he needed oil money (oh, yes, aren't we making money hand over fist now?).

And even if you did try to take him down, his republican guard would take you out first


Mrs. PigPen:

And don't forget Scott Ritter's report:

RITTER TESTIMONY to NCI

Bush and Blair have been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts in Iraq:
Blair and Bush nominated for Nobel prize

Somebody thinks they did the right thing...

Arafat has one too.

We will truly be living in the post-modern world if someone can win the Nobel Peace Prize by launching a preempetive war. Even the nominee doesn't think it is very likely that he will win.

Actually, regionally, Bush has made the Middle East more peaceful. How long has it been since Israel & Palestine exchanged any gun fire? That's an acheivement that no president has been able to do.

If you think our soldiers are afraid now that they are living in a war zone what do you think the people who call it home feel? It doesn't help living among a bunch of armed nervous soldiers who can't tell who the enemy is and would rather shoot and live then find out and die. Think about it in terms of where it's happening: the middle of highly populated cities full of civilians.

Add to that the increasingly aggressive operations popping up like the ones to cut down on the deaths of US soldiers and find weapons.

Or the one they started when they decided they had to kill or capture Saddam so things would calm down.

Or the one too seek out more intelligence to help assist in the other two.

I would fear having a bunch of heavily armed soldiers kicking in my door in the middle of the night while my family slept. Then if they dragged us outside, we were forced to kneel down, hands tied, bag over our heads, and troops running around waving guns and yelling commands at us in a language we don't understand.

Then if I was taken prisoner my family wouldn't be able to find out where I was or how long I would be there or if I were still alive. Their only consalation being that Saddams torture chambers were gone. That's something I guess...but is it enough?

I know to us the lives of our soldiers is the top priority and most important thing and we feel these are necessary to save our men from the enemy and it's hard to know who the enemy is. But looking from the point of view of those caught in the middle I don't know that they think it's a sacrifice they should have to make.

How would you feel if after losing half your family the occupation forces justified it by saying it could and would do anything it had to in order to protect the lives of it's heavily armed soldiers? Because they are an invading force that no one wanted there in the first place I would be pretty damn angry as an Iraqi if I heard that even if I hated Saddam and was glad he was gone.

This also would only help to increase the mistrust and rage already built up:

QUOTE

Central Command has issued a directive to U.S. forces: When a car approaches your checkpoint, fire "warning" shots at its engine. If it doesn't stop, kill everyone inside. This policy results in a lot of dead, unarmed, Iraqi civilians accustomed to standard roadblock protocol (whereby motorists pull up and present ID to police). Some drivers don't hear the bullets pinging off their engine blocks; others assume they're being ambushed by bandits and floor it. Either way, they die.

This happens all over the country, yet it never occurs to the geniuses at CentCom to issue new orders. On July 28, U.S. Task Force 20 murdered five innocent Iraqi drivers in Baghdad's Mansur section in this way. "All of the soldiers shot immediately," says Abu Hassan, a local store owner. "The people are angry and very upset."  Yahoo

The stories are everywhere...I don't understand why some of you act surprised at the fact or underestimate the level of how much we are hated and mistrusted in Iraq.

I just find it interesting that Saddam's daughters and grandchildren had to seek asylum in Jordan. I guess they felt they had to get away before the US shot all of them as well. Isn't that sad?

I hardly think if Hitler had daughters that they would return to Germany after WWII. How is this sad?

So you are saying we murdered Saddam's maniac brats, so therefore we would do the same with everyone else of his relative family? That's a little naive of you to think we would be that heartless and cold-blooded.

DANYA:

That's what happens in war. You don't know who is who. It's not like a new tactic.

If i were an Iraqi, i wouldn't be scared of an American soldier. Probably 90% of the time an iraqi doesn't use his/her head & goes running up to a soldier like a crazy person making him nervous.



What aggressive operations? We kick doors down and ask for tips from locals. If that is agressive, maybe we should just forget about it and go home & let saddam return to power.

And what is wrong with killing a man the insurgents are fighting us to get back in power??

Especially if the man is a genocidial madman

I will stop now while i have control over my temper

You seem to believe you have a good handle on the feelings and desires of the Iraqi population. Who knows, maybe you do.

So, what do you think they want us to do, starting today?
Leave? It seems to me that is the only option that would support the way you portray their feelings. Cause if we stay we're going to continue our security ops along the same lines as today, if not even more 'aggressive'.

And please, just what is the origination of this quote? It reads like a posting on a message board or something and you put it out here as if its some credible source.

















so

Considering how many Americans have been killed with the "standard roadblock protocol", the change in policy is warranted.

I'm with you on this one. As awful as it is that innocent people are getting killed as a result, there seems to be no alternative. The fault lies not with the US soldiers, but with the people whose subterfuge made such a policy necessary. It's very like the situation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, where ambulances cannot help the wounded because they've too often been used as cover for terrorists. This is why we have rules of war, and why we all must abide by them. Without such rules, terrible things like this happen, and it's always the fault of those who broke or weakened the rules.

Err, so, just out of curiosity, is this new policy increasing our trust between us and the Iraqi's? Is this policy that kills a lot of unarmed civilians making our image better or worse?

It seems to me like your saying that its okay to kill Arabs, in any variety of situations, as long as Americans ultimately live. Thats going to be a lot of death at America's feet.

Are you then suggesting that we relax and accept increased casualties so we can raise the level of trust? I would hope that's not the case.

Thats a fair question.

We'll considering that then, someones going to die.

We Americans are going to die, or were going to kill Arabs and reduce trust.

I think though, ultimately, you can put this in the negative section for "Was invading Iraq the right decision."

Of course it's not naive. Not when people like you and Amlord try to defend every cold blooded heartless thing we've already proven that they have done. Instead you defend even murder. Thanks to that kind of response and approval you are happy to let it continue until none of us know where it will end. Takes a lot of nerve for someone living in denial to call anyone else naive.

Yeah right.

Put it this way...if China invaded the US and we were in the same situation you would be very afraid. And then you would be angry and eventually even homicidal enough to kill one of their soldiers if you got the chance. I know I would.


Care to back this up with anything that even resembles fact? I can't tell if you're simply trying to blame the victim or if you're so racist you actually believe this. Do you see the Iraqi people as being so backward and ignorant that it's their stupidity that forces our soldiers to have to kill them? You seriously underestimate how civilized those people were before we got there. But since they aren't like American's they must be stupid. After living under Saddam I doubt they eagerly approach anyone in authority in the way you like to think. Especially ones with rifles at the ready.


Read the news much? Ever see the pictures of these night raids and 'questioning' sessions? If you don't know what really goes on when they carry out these operations it's only because you don't pay attention. Probably on purpose.

You assume it's a political arm of Saddam's that's responsible for these ambushes. I don't. I think it's more like an underground resistance that more and more Iraqi's join because they believe we're dangerous and want us out. Time will tell once Saddam is dead and gone for sure but I'm placing my bet right now that it turns out not to make a bit of difference.

Do you have any proof for this underground resistance? I havent heard about ANY Iraqi citizens causing violence, its all Saddamists and terrorists.

Depends. Maybe they should just stop at a checkpoint instead of not


DANYA:



No. we defend the deaths of 2 crazy brats who torture and rape for pleasure




Night raids: Kicking down the doors...just like i said

No i have not seen any pics of "questioning sessions"

If you believe whatever al-jazerra tells you, fine. Take their lies over the truth. I read up on everything that comes out about iraq.

And also, the reason we don't hear about these operations is because we don't wanna tip off whoever we are after.




Who do you think it is? ordinary Iraqis? If that were the case, we'd have more than 1 or 2 dead soldiers a day.

Nope. No proof at all except reading the climate of the overall situation and knowing a little history about how occupied people in situations like this often react by forming resistance groups. Plus Saddam didn't have this many friends and supporters. I don't think anyone seriously believes he can return to power no matter what.

Plus his daughter seemed bitter in an interview about how his highest or most trusted men deserted or betrayed him in the end. Saying he was unpopular would be a huge understatement...people don't want him back and know the US would nuke Iraq before we let that happen.

So, it's just a guess on my part but it seems much more plausible than what I'm hearing from the Pentagon. And the more sure they sound the less convinced I am. It's not like they haven't been completely wrong where it counts so far so their intelligence isn't exactly gospel truth....it's simply how they have decided to read the situation.

Besides, I've heard a few press conferences where Generals admit they don't know for sure who's responsible but the think it's the Fadyheem (sp?), people being paid by Saddam, Iran sending in agitators, all kinds of things that lead me to believe they don't know and can't agree anyway. But now they seem to have settled on blaming Saddam and taking him out. We'll see if it works.

However, the term terrorist is being selectively applied here...they are fighting our military and not killing our innocent civilians or targeting their own so you can't call them terrorists in the same sense as the ones that attacked us on 9/11. And since they were the ones attacked in the first place it would be considered self defense in their own eyes anyway. I wish people would not throw the word terrorist around so casually. It's an insult to the families of the 9/11 victims who really were victims of terrorism.


The reasons why they don't always stop have already been adressed in that article...you're being unreasonable.


I was referring to the prisoners we beat to death not Saddam's sons.


I don't read Al Jazeera except when I'm curious about how they are spinning a story in the Arab world. It's good to look and see because it affects their public opinion in the same way Fox does ours.

I think your missing a lot of stories.
You have the internet and the resources to read news from multiple sources and multiple countries...some are credible and some aren't...I go through GOOGLE News and check headlines all through the day. You'll find a broad range of sources there and soon you can tell what their credibility level is if you do that long enough. Good luck.

It isn't the Iraqui people they're hiding from.

I just came across this article (Washington Post not Al Jazeera ) and it covered a lot of issues we've brought up in this thread. It's one of the more informative ones that that help shed some light on what things are like at the moment giving several different POV's including the military's.

I again came away feeling as if the struggle going on is not only with Saddam's thugs because, in this case, an entire village turned on an informer. Maybe they did so due to the treatment they suffered from the operation itself but if not it means the entire village felt that if you help the US forces you are a traitor. Either way it's a bad sign.

It still doesn't prove my resistance theory but it's one of those little red flags that make me believe it very well could be the case.

GA,
I pulled this piece from the article because it's a good example of how those op's we've been discussing typically go. I know this wouldn't bother you if you were an Iraqi but I thought I'd show you anyway.


I hope they were going by more than just this guy's word if he really was a convicted con man. The article has a quote from the military that assures they do vet intelligence so let's hope that's true.

Passion, I saw your post asking what I think should be done earlier in the thread. I'm still working on editing it because it was long by the time I was finished with it. I'll get it to you soon.

UrbanWar: You wanted a source supporting the claim that not all of the Iraqi resistance is from Saddam loyalists. This link also has links: IRAQ
DEMOCRACY WATCH
http://blogs.salon.com/0002515/2003/07/10.html

http://www.rationalenquirer.org/








There is mounting resistance, organized and otherwise, to the American occupation. And it isn't just forces loyal to Saddam Hussein or terrorist cells. It is the Iraqi citizens as well. Bush said, "Bring 'em on," and the troops get to deal with it.

Was it the right decision to take a detour and invade Iraq when trying to destroy Al Qaeda? No.

I tried to make this shorter but it's still long.

It takes two things to be able to get decent handle on what the general evolving mood is in Iraq.

1 ) Become a news junkie. If you read everything you sometimes find a few articles that actually ask the Iraqi's what is going on. Pay close attention when you do. Compare it to the next article and the one after that...even though they are being interviewed by reporters that are unaffiliated with each other and come from the US, NZ, australia, Canada, Britain, etc. It's unlikely they are all spinning the same way. So, it's safe to assume it's true when they are all saying the same things or are giving the same general negative view.

2 ) Spend some time putting yourself in their position. Imagine how you would react if the shoe were and how you'd feel if you were one of the innocent caught in the middle of something you didn't ask for and never wanted and are paying the consequences for. It's a little thing called empathy. I think I was born with way too much of it which explains why I'm always upset trying to argue someone else's side when I don't think they are getting a fair deal.


Well, that's a good question. What do you do in a quagmire? Since every choice you have is bad all you can do is go back to basics and remember your purpose for being there. Then make sure you apply that to every one of your actions. It's too easy for both sides to let outrage and retribution cloud everything else. It just carries you further and further from your goal and turns into a vicious cycle.

I would approach this on many different levels but I would start by ending the night raids and round ups that aren't making any noticeable dent in the number of attacks. The massive number of guns and RPG's out there is staggering and you will be there doing raids in 2015 and still not be finished. I doubt that's a good plan. Approach it from a different angle which is trying to give them less reasons to attack. If our troops aren't out planning and carrying out these operations they will have more time to spend on taking care of the country's security issues and not just their own. The sooner they do that the sooner they can go home.

They need to pay attention to the fundamentalists trying to enforce religious laws that we don't want to have to deal with later. Quash them now and fast...arrest the ones raping the women and attacking or killing them if they aren't wearing veils or if they are in western dress. In other words work harder on anticipating and stopping the problems before they become a full blown crisis. The first days of looting should have taught us that. Rumsfeld got it wrong by letting it go on for more than a week and, in his mind, think it was not a serious but happy revelers celebrating. WRONG.

Face the fact that the troops will come under attack. Do everything reasonably and legally possible to keep them from being targets. But in the end you have to remember they are in a war, they are soldiers, and they are supposed to be fighting for a free Iraq at the moment. That's the end goal they have to achieve.

The fact that they could die bringing about the freedom of others is the only noble thing they've got going right now. It's what's supposed to make them brave...trying to prevent attacks by creating situations instead cost the lives of children and women and other civilians is cowardly if not criminal. Stop pretending our forces are victims of terrorist attacks. They aren't unsuspecting civilians.

Why don't the territories under british control have as many problems as we do? Maybe we should adopt some of their techniques and get rid of a few of our less effective ones.

And then start putting election efforts on the fast track...this being most important. Once those are done, and the sewage, water, and electricity is done, claim it's a victory and LEAVE. Just accomplishing that much would be a miracle considering the circumstances.

I have a ton of ideas. I was going to bore you with a couple more but I doubt they would be taken seriously considering the difference in our views so I won't wase more space. BTW, The link to that paragraph is in my quote...it comes from Yahoo's news site.

Danya, a few things for you to consider.

You argue both for and against our aggressive actions. You can't have it both ways.

You say that Iraqis don't do things that lead to their own demise such as improperly approaching our checkpoints, yet you cite just the opposite.

That citation is nothing more than an op-ed column, but you treat it as a news item.

Your adoption of the term 'quagmire' highlights all too well the error of your sources. 'Quagmire' is a liberal code-word much the same as 'McCarthyism', neither of which is legitimate as used by the left.

Man-on-the-street interviews are the least reliable news sources you can find.

I go through September11news.com to look at the news from worldwide online sources daily to get news on Iraq, Afghanistan & our foriegn policy in general from the world.

Can you be more specific? I'm not arguing that we can't defend ourselves...I'm arguing that we must stop certain behaviors that are not advancing our goals...one of which is a Free Iraq. Personally, I think that our military needs to dust off the Geneva Conventions and use them as a strict guideline for their operations. They seem to have forgotten some of the finer points and it's starting to have an adverse effect. That's all. My stance does not argue for anything that isn't required in all wars...I'm not being selective and picking on the US military I'm simply telling them to live by the law if they are hoping to create some kind of law abiding society by having this war in the first place.


How? We changed the rules (if this is an accurate account of our new way of handling checkpoints) on what was proper and improper advances. We can't assume that with no electricity these people all got the message that things had suddenly changed. And I don't find simply driving up to a check point in itself anything aggressive.

Maybe they should install toll booths with arms so they can be sure everyone stops. Something uniform that works and makes every car stop at the check point in order to then be waved through would mean we wouldn't be selective about who looks like a threat or who didn't obey the command to stop. This is turning into a chaotic situation that needs to be re-thought is all I'm saying. Sometimes the fault doesn't lie with the public but with the way we are choosing to administer our rules. Maybe some of the rules are good ones...but the way we choose to carry them out are the problem.


It comes from a reputable enough source and it also sounds exactly like other reports I've seen...so I feel confident that it's a legitimate situation that's going on there or I wouldn't have posted it. But you make a fair point...op eds aren't news, they're interpretation of news. I used the point about the checkpoints because I believe it to be true and in character of the military situation. If you don't that's fair enough. But I'm not going to go looking for more stories to convince you. I've spent too much time on that the last couple of days anyway so I'll pass. So sorry. I didn't know it was a leftist term, I thought it was a term that implied the same kind of mess our Vietnam soldiers faced and that's the way I intended it. But by all means, tell me what the correct term is for such an environment and the one the rightwing uses too. I better get them all straight because this isn't something that's going to go away any time soon and I don't want to make this mistake again.

Maybe if we're talking about a car accident in a NY intersection or the details of what your mugger looked like.

But trying to gauge the mood in Iraq by listening to as many accounts by the man on the street is a far more reliable way to reach the closest thing to the truth you can get. I don't think relying on official press releases by CentCom or the Pentagon is the way to get a true idea of what's going on. I prefer to add to that the quotes I'm seeing from our soldiers and from the Iraqi people and weighing all three to get a better picture. Is that stupid? Maybe to you but I feel much more informed that way.

You are free to get your info from Rumsfeld if you think he's more credible than 50 separate accounts by individuals on the ground in that country but I don't. I like more than just cold hard military jargan. Also I don't find him credible or capable at all and think he's to blame for most of this mess in the first place. I don't see him improving either.

GA
I didn't know they had a newsite that viewed everything about Iraq as how it relates to 9/11. But until they link the two in a credible way I don't know how much I would rely on it as a single source. It sounds like there is a lot they neglect to tell you based on your request for links or explanations on some issues that are widely reported in most other news environments.

I still don't see how Iraq is a "Quagmire". So there is no need to call this a quagmire



It isn't on an Al-Queda Iraq connection. It just has daily reports of news from Iraq by different online news sources worldwide about Iraq news & it also has news about Al-Queda. It has nothgin to do with a connection between them. It has info on military issues going on around the world. Just go to the site to see what i am talking about. The news portion is on the verybottom of the site: ]September11 news

GA & Passion51
Would you consider 'predicament' to be a more accurate descripton? Or would that be too offensive for you too? According to the Merriam Webster definition they are synonymous.

Webster's definition says nothing about either word being leftist, liberal, or anything relating to McArtheyism. As far as I'm concerned it's a reasonable description of the situation. If it makes anyone bristle I can't imagine why. It seems as if you're the one's trying to politicize it which makes your reaction to the word your problem and not mine. So, I feel confident the label is appropriate and will continue using it until a more suitable label comes along or until things no longer resemble a true quagmire in Iraq.

Using the definition below I suppose we can also call Afghanistan a quagmire as well. The only difference being in body counts which most likely can be attributed to the fact we have true international cooperation in one and not the other.

[quote=Danya,Aug 2 2003, 07:48 PM]

Using the definition below I suppose we can also call Afghanistan a quagmire as well. The only difference being in body counts which most likely can be attributed to the fact we have true international cooperation in one and not the other. [QUOTE]

  [/quote]
The battles in Afghanistan and Iraq are totally different and it has nothing to do with int'l cooperation. Do you think the Iraqi fighters would decide not to attack a multi-national force? Because they were wearing blue helmets,or what?

Nope. I'm talking about the number of casualties and the amount of resistance as being the difference between the two. But they have more in common than they have differences.

My point was both Iraq and Afghanistan are: difficult, perplexing, or trying situations as well as precarious, or entrapping positions.

It's true we can choose whether or not to be entrapped by failing or pulling out of both situations but doing so in Afghanistan would be a deadly and irresponsible decision since it's directly tied to 9/11 and terrorism.

The promises made there are, amusingly, similar to the ones made about Iraq. So please don't claim we just need more time because the proof is apparent that isn't all we need by looking at our past experience in Afghanistan. Things have done nothing but deteriorate almost back to pre war status. It's going on two years with lot's of help and nothing substantial or lasting has been accomplished. We don't seem interested even in catching back up to where we were after the war there either. We just ignore it and let it fester...like we do North Korea.

It amazes me Bush is considered to be strong or capable on national security when he has done NOTHING related to 9/11 that is keeping us safe. Pretending he can rebuild the entire Middle East by using wars followed by failed nation building as some kind of message or example to follow is extremely foolish. It might even be funny if it weren't so deadly serious.

Both countries, Iraq and Afghanistan, include huge, complex, and difficult answers and they are truly quagmires that will compete for our money, soldiers, and attention. The one we should be focused on is short changed by feeding everything into the one that will make little or no difference at all in relation to another 9/11 attack.

How is Afghanistan a Quagmire?? How is Iraq a quagmire?? Can you tell me that? 60 U.S. soldiers have died as of July 20th in Afghanistan but there have been more captures and deaths of Taliban/Al-Queda members than that times 10 & 165(?) have died in Iraq but that is just 10 troops over what the 1st Gulf war casualties were because this time we went ALL THE WAY.

Give me a break.

Yes...there will be days when things go wrong in both of those countries and it may look like a bad thing but that doesn't mean everyone jumps up and yells QUAGMIRE!!




You go crazy too much about casualties and forget that casualties are part of war. Casualties don't mean it's a Vietnam Scenario. The same with resistance. IT IS A PART OF WAR.

It's completley insane to go all nuclear over a few casualties when it is a part of war. Until Iraqi casualties reach 1,000, there is no need to go overboard

Again, THIS is how they are quagmires:
2 : a difficult, precarious, or entrapping position : PREDICAMENT:
CONDITION, STATE; especially : a difficult, perplexing, or trying situation.

Because you're denying it's any of these things it must mean you think:
1. This is easy!
2. It's not dangerous!
3. It's not a no win situation!
4. It's easy to know what to do!
5. It's not trying for our troops!


I beg of you to educate yourself better. The Iraqi casualty number passed 1,000 a long long time ago. I am not going to do your homework for you. You should already know this. Do a Google search if you don't believe me.

Of course if you're waiting for the Pentagon and CentCom to give you an official total forget it. They refuse to count how many people they kill which is probably good news for you...that way you can pretend that NO casualties exist if that's the source you need to hear it from. There are a few other organizations out there that all agree the number is at least between 5,000 to 10,000 civilian Iraqi casualties already killed.

Come on. I disagree. Iraq is certainley a quagmire, not leftist terminology, but fact. We have not been able to return the most basic needs to the people,, establish law and order, set up a government, and the most difficult and long term strategy, to put down insurrection and bring tribes under a single unbrella which will meet their needs. The Bushies went in with a very superficial plan, not well thought out. It was their push to invade Iraq with little patience and do it before Bush had to campaign for 2004 that made for the chaos and anarchy that is Iraq right now. This is a long term project, an adoption as it were. Theres no getting out of Iraq, unless we let it fall to Islamic fundamentalists who are biting at the bit to get control of the nation. Its not a 3 month campaign and Im sure very few expected it to be.

We cant repeat Afghanistan, where rebel tribes are revolting and Karzai is begging the US not to forget him, as did Bush in his budget plan. Hit and run is not workable. We should have known that, because there was never any real intention to get out of Iraq, only the most naive could believe so, what with all that oil, the spoils of war? We are going to be running that show for years to come, and I might add that no Democrat will do otherwise. Its not only a quagmire, its a bog. We went, we conquered and now we are responsible, just like the good old days of colonization.

To help you understand what a quagmire situation is, think of a low sea-level, marshy area where you have to be awfully careful where you step. One false step and you may end up in mud up to your waist (or worse).

Soldiers patrolling the streets in Iraqi villages could identify with that. On one street there are smiling people welcoming their "liberators." On the next street, there are surly people who turn their backs or go quickly into their dwellings. Which people are more dangerous? Until the soldiers know, they are all dangerous.

And how do you know? Have you been in Iraq? Do you know what it is like currently in te way of basic services?

Looting is decreasing because the United States is working on police forces & an army to handle the situation & water & electricity are starting to come back. THINGS TAKE TIME



No aid huh?




Danya:
U.S. casualties numbers

But, if you are talking of Iraq civilian deaths, you'll notice in Iraq body count.com's ticker, it says that some civilian deaths are from attack ON NOT FROM U.S. forces. So i suppose you are gnna blame the death of a civilian on the U.S. and not the insurgent

Everyone but you knows this. How do you know our soldiers are being attacked? Have you been in Iraq lately? Sheesh.



Why on earth would I think that SOME of them weren't caused by the other side? And what difference does it make? They're still dead civilians THANKS TO THIS WAR. They still count no matter how they died.

Civilians die in war. It's just like resistance and allied casualties...it happens because it is a part of war.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think the deaths of civilians is okay, i just think it's bad but it can't be avoided

It can be avoided if you more war truly the last resort. In this case it clearly was not. The inevitable innocent civilian casualties were deemed acceptable. At times our leaders seem to justify this by saying, "but they would have killed more Iraqis than have died in this war."

This was a bad war. I think a truly tragic but ironic development of the war is the fact that NOW it seems that Al-Qaeda is acting in Iraq to strike at our troops.

U.S. Commander: Al Qaeda Probably Operating in Iraq

It makes sense. During Saddam's regime he was the top dog, and he brooked no opposition from Islamist groups. Now that the country is in chaos, the terrorists can walk right in and receive support from disgruntled Iraqis, recruit members, and attack Americans without crossing an ocean or learning to fly a plane. Bonus for them!

Do we still think it was a good idea to invade and "liberate" Iraq? Maybe the old saying is right, "Better the devil we know, than the devil we don't know."

Paladin Elspeth & Eeyore:

Note he said PROBABLY in the article.

Even if they are in Iraq, then taht means more Al-Queda to take down. They want to take our troops on again, fine. Al-Queda obviously haven't learned their lesson in Afghanistan.

Besides, how many months has Beamer been saying PROBABLY?

I can find a link where he isn't quoted as saying "probably." Would that help? And it's Sanchez, not Beamer.

http://www.azstarnet.com/star/mon/30728nIr...ignfighter.html

I can "probably" find more.

I think I understand your position perfectly. But I don't agree with it. Tell me, what was wrong with the way Hitler decided to carry out his invasions and occupations? Could be that the situation, at least on the ground where things were dangerous, required drastic measures like slave labor, death camps, and medical experiments. They may all have been necessary to fight the war on Europe. Maybe those were just HIS ways of maintaining security and keeping his soldiers safe. Since we weren't there we can't really know....we just have to have faith he thought he was doing what was best for Germany. Yeah...that's it.

Anyway, unless a giant piece of this story is missing or erroneous the details paint a pretty good picture of what happened. It doesn't seem like we're missing anything except what exactly made them all 'material witnesses' and how integral their roles to security could have been. If it's solid and doesn't involve trying to protect troops from being attacked he may wiggle out of it.

OR the judge may think the case might have been solid enough to hold the others but felt the note showed an intent to turn it into a hostage situation to gain even more information and convict him anyway.

I have just sorta caught up with some of this post and am going to dip my oar in the water and prematurely make a disturbance.

Was invading IRAQ the right decision??.
Bear with me please.

INVADING was most certainly the right word.
It was not a war, Iraq never officially declared war on America...nor did NK, Vietnam Afghanistan...and so on.
YES Japan declared war on America..and YES the Axis declared war on America.
From these onwards everything else American forces did was technically either Invasive, Occupative and certainly aggressive

YES.. Invading Iraq was the right decision.
For Corporate America.

America deliberately destroyed the Iraqi infrastucture with the corporate instigated 'shock and awe' tactics against an invented threat.
America then installed a provisional government who awarded the MAJOR contracts for rebuilding to American companies, this to be paid by the American controlled Iraqi oil industry.

Beautiful...pure magic..

The lesson we out here have learned?.

DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING AMERICA WANTS.

Regards....Alan

Personally, I think it's better they fight our troops over there than attack our civilians at home.

If Al Queada took the fight to the US in Iraq and proved the weren't on the run Bush would have failed in delivering that message to the ME, wouldn't he? Someone didn't learn their lesson in Afghanistan. And I don't know what lesson terrorists there learned...to grow? To follow us around to our other conflicts and wars?

You're right about one thing...they don't really know for sure who and how many are targeting us. That's why it's always changing.