hxxp://reuters.myway.com/article/20050511/2005-05-11T143729Z_01_N11184007_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-IRAQ-DC.html

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Suicide bombs killed at least 71 people in Iraq on Wednesday, taking to nearly 400 the number of Iraqis killed in guerrilla attacks since a new government was unveiled two weeks ago.

Why is 'Civil War' capitalized and described as inevitable? I don't really know what's going on, but the NPR reporter I heard driving home today indicated all signs point to the bombers being non-Iraqi/Kurd.

Why is 'Civil War' capitalized and described as inevitable? I don't really know what's going on, but the NPR reporter I heard driving home today indicated all signs point to the bombers being non-Iraqi/Kurd.

1. You're reading too much into the capitalization

2. I think it's inevitable. I think many do. Or do you believe that democracy is going to work overnight? That various peoples who make up that country will start getting along after hundreds of years of hating each other?

1. You're reading too much into the capitalization

2. I think it's inevitable. I think many do. Or do you believe that democracy is going to work overnight? That various peoples who make up that country will start getting along after hundreds of years of hating each other?

I don't know if democracy WILL work in Iraq but it certainly CAN work. It works in quite a few places worldwide. It works (more or less) here in the US (despite, or perhaps thanks to, a Civil War of our own) I think it's possibly racist to assume it can't work in a Muslim country. I think overall the question is too complicated for anybody with mortal understanding to know for sure the answer. I strongly suspect that nobody can predict the future.

I don't know if democracy WILL work in Iraq but it certainly CAN work. It works in quite a few places worldwide. It works (more or less) here in the US (despite, or perhaps thanks to, a Civil War of our own) I think it's possibly racist to assume it can't work in a Muslim country. I think overall the question is too complicated for anybody with mortal understanding to know for sure the answer. I strongly suspect that nobody can predict the future.
I don't think he was being racist, I think it is more a thinking that democracy is actually really, really hard. Democracy is essentially a sharing of power, and it's hard to give up power, it's against human nature. I think more countries have had civil wars than have not had civil wars, so to say it is inevitable isn't too much of a stretch.

begun, the Civil Wars, have.

The civil war started the day Saddam fell, we've just tried to not be aware of it.

Well, if you listen to numerous Southerners down here, Lincoln was the biggest terrorist humanity has ever known, so to think that terrorism, democracy and civil war go hand in hand isn't a stretch.

Democracy is allowed to have a strong central government just like Saddam Hussein's dictatorship had. So civil war can be averted. It will take a while for it to work, it took America what? 13 years before we got it figured out? And now there's a few more blueprints to follow. The Turks are a pretty good example from a neighboring perspective.

I see this (large bombing spree) as the end of a fireworks show as the terrorists pop off as many headline grabbing articles as they can to drown out the less sensational news of Iraq's new government.

I don't know how long it will last, but signs are good that the US and Iraqi forces are cracking down with greater ease these days than just a week or two ago against terrorists and insurgents. And it is beginning to look like a large majority of Iraqi's are slowing realizing that the American presense isn't actually the Apocalypse but a better deal than what the terrorists are offering them.

You mean the Clone Wars, right? Cause yeah that shit started at the end of episode 2 and the fighting is still in full swing at the start of episode 3 from what I've read.

Screaming "Allahu Akbar'' to the end, the foreign fighters lay on their backs in a narrow crawl space under a house and blasted their machine guns up through the concrete floor with bullets designed to penetrate tanks. They fired at U.S. Marines, driving back wave after wave as the Americans tried to retrieve a fallen comrade.

Through Sunday night and into Monday morning, the foreign fighters battled on, their screaming voices gradually fading to just one. In the end, it took five Marine assaults, grenades, a tank firing bunker-busting artillery rounds, 500-pound bombs unleashed by an F/A-18 attack plane and a point-blank attack by a rocket launcher to quell them.

The Marines got their fallen man, suffering one more dead and at least five wounded in the process. And according to survivors of the battle, the foreign fighters near the Syrian border proved to be everything their reputation had suggested: fierce, determined and lethal to the last.


Yup sounds like they are just done for. But, hey we need people with like determination to combat them, like the War Politicians, War Preachers, War Pundits, the 101st Fighting Keyboardists, and their loyal followers. Recruiters are eagerly (and desperately) standing by to take orders.

I don't know how long it will last, but signs are good that the US and Iraqi forces are cracking down with greater ease these days than just a week or two ago against terrorists and insurgents.

Did you see the news today?

In other news: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12417-2005Apr23.html?nav=slate

"The government is useless! I have stopped depending on it," Ali Hali, a 29-year-old Shiite, cried last week. He was among hundreds of wailing residents of the southern city of Najaf who gathered in anger after scores of bodies were found in the Tigris. How the people were killed is not known, but Shiites said they presumed them to be victims of Sunni extremists.

Meanwhile, officials describe setbacks in the security situation in the Sunni Muslim city of Husaybah on the Syrian border, near the area where fighters tied to al Qaeda had staged the second of two well-planned attacks on a U.S. military installation this month. An Iraqi army unit that had once grown to 400 members has dwindled to a few dozen guardsmen "holed up'' inside a phosphate plant outside of Husaybah for their protection, a Marine commander said.

"They will claim that they've got hundreds ready to come back and fight," said Reed, whose company seldom patrols inside Husaybah. "Well, there are no more than 30 of them on duty on any given day, and they are completely ineffective."

Read that article. Sounds like things are going great, huh?

13 years before we got it figured out? And now there's a few more blueprints to follow. The Turks are a pretty good example from a neighboring perspective.

Are you willing to spend 13 years in Iraq to HOPE they get it figured out? Once the 81 BILLION dollar bill passes, we'll have spent over 200 BILLION on this "war". In what, two years? And you're prepared to stay 11 more years?

When will people realize that acts like this are what caused 9/11. Not our "freedom" as some would want you to believe.

I strongly suspect that nobody can predict the future.

Nope, but you sure as hell can try. And the predictions that this would be another Vietnam are looking to be pretty spot on these days.

I'm not able to tell the future any better than the press can. Who knows, really? But if I could predict anything, it's that *right now* a pull out would make things ripe for civil war, so I'm not clear what you think the next step is.

But in any event, it is my opinion that it's worth the effort and the cost. If you don't respect that, that's fine, but I voted for President Bush to do this and expect him to continue to support the effort. It is my opinion that the process is moving forward steadily.

I know we can agree that it would be great if it all worked out tommorrow, but sadly, there are terrorist-like insurgents that will drag this conflict out as long as they can.

And please learn to take responsability for your own doing. If you kill a child, don't blame me. Same for those who rammed a plane into a skyscraper on 9/11.

Why do people think democracry and rebuilding happens overnight?

Why do people think democracry and rebuilding happens overnight?

Why do people think every country needs American democracy?

I see this (large bombing spree) as the end of a fireworks show as the terrorists pop off as many headline grabbing articles as they can to drown out the less sensational news of Iraq's new government.

I don't know how long it will last, but signs are good that the US and Iraqi forces are cracking down with greater ease these days than just a week or two ago against terrorists and insurgents.
Would you say that we are 'turning the corner' in Iraq?

July 24, 2003 (from the New York Times, after the deaths of Uday and Qusay Hussein): "White House officials however exuded determination they had turned a corner in the increasingly difficult task of restoring order from chaos in Iraq."

August 13, 2003 (from Fox "News" show Special Report With Brit Hume, Fred Barnes speaking): "Now, Paul Bremer says -- who's over there running the American regime in Iraq, where they've turned the corner in defeating the Baathists and so on and most of the country is safe and stable, says we don't need more troops...I think Bremer also said it was only about 100 terrorists have come in from...outside the country from Iran. And that's not really that many. So I don't think it's that big a problem."

January 1, 2004 (from ABC News, after a bomb blew up at a Baghdad New Year's celebration): "Last night's attack came at a time when coalition officials were cautiously beginning to feel that they had turned a corner here in Iraq."

June 2, 2004 (from CNN's Inside Politics, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice speaking): "The reason that we've turned a corner and, more importantly, that Iraq has turned a corner and the Iraqi people have turned a corner is that they now have a government in place broadly representative of, broadly capable, I think, of representing the views of the Iraqi people that can now accept sovereignty and can be a full partner in trying to secure Iraq and in accelerating its reconstruction. The Iraqis don't like occupation any more than we would like occupation. And it is time for that occupation to end."

September 14, 2004 (from CNN's Newsnight With Aaron Brown, Senator Lindsay Graham speaking): "And between now and our November election and between now and January there will be hell to pay in Iraq because the stakes are very high but, if we can make it through January, Aaron, then I think we've turned the corner."

February 9, 2005 (from CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports, Senator Lindsay Graham speaking after the Iraqi - and American - elections): "If we think we've turned the corner, this is a misreading of what happened. The attacks are going to continue."

April 15, 2005 (from Fox "News" show The Big Story With John Gibson, Richard Perle answering a question about whether or not a corner has been turned in Iraq): " I believe we've turned a corner. And that was -- that corner was turned when 8.5 million Iraqis braved death to cast their first votes. Now a government is being formed. The Iraqi people are invested in the future of their own country. And that was the critical turning point." The next question Gibson asked Perle was whether or not he ever felt like saying "we were right."

The thing about constantly turning corners? You end up going in circles.

I've been hearing how thigns are turning around for the past two years. Forgive me if I am skeptical of your rosy outlook.

Nope, but you sure as hell can try. And the predictions that this would be another Vietnam are looking to be pretty spot on these days.

Are they really?

US battle deaths by year:

Prior to 1966 - 3,078 (Total up through 31 Dec 65)
1966 - 5,008
1967 - 9,378
1968 - 14, 589
1969 - 9,414
1970 - 4,221
1971 - 1,381
1972 - 300

This was pretty clearly just a big day for the insurgency from everything I read. It seems like they were picking some strategic targets to keep day to day life and volunteering in Iraq as shaky as possible. IIRC, one suicide bombing attack was on a street corner where day laborers would gather every morning to wait for assignments. A second was in the line for people signing up for law enforcement training.

It seems like this is a better "strategy" for the insurgency than trying to kill American troops. Try to scare the Iraqi people out of trying to do anything positive at all, to scare them out of having anything to do with government at all(and how will a democracy succeed if the people aren't involved in the government) via assassinations and bombs like this, and scare the average working man and make him feel like he can't do his job daily without risking his life.


I want to see us succeed, regardless of my feelings on the war when it started... now that we're there, I want everything to work out, but if the insurgents who want us to fail start consistantly going after Iraqi civilians instead of the well armed US Military I'm pretty worried about our chances for success. As we've discussed here before I believe, it's pretty much impossible to stop someone from killing a bunch of innocent people if he's prepared to die himself.

As for the length of time we've been over there, anyone who didn't see this coming was very very shortsighted IMO. Whether it was the media or the government feeding us the bullshit, the idea when we went over there that we'd be in and out in a few months was absolutely laughable. Honestly, I don't think anyone "lied" to us on that front, but the government(Rumsfeld being the talking head at this piont) was very political about it and only focused on taking out saddam to gain public support for the war, and somehow enough suckers(ie. your average american who just wants to be spoon fed information and doesn't want to think) bought into it and ignored the fact that there might be long term consequences and strain on our forces.


This also takes me back to a point that was made about Al Qaeda attackign the United State awhile ago. Suicide Bombers are about the scariest thing I can think of. We have a shot at stopping 9/11 scale attacks. But what would happen if someone from Al Qaeda walked into a mall in the USA and went into the food court and detonated a bomb attached to his body once a month or so. That's terror. That would scare the shit out of every American more than any large scale attack(barring some insane 24 scenario) could. Glad the bad guys haven't figured that out yet.

Would you say that we are 'turning the corner' in Iraq?


Classic.

I would like to note that whenever anyone questions the prospects for democracy in Iraq, conservatives are just as willing to "pull the race card" as liberals have ever been.

I think the question in Iraq is less whether Arabs or Muslims can have a successful democracy (as mentioned, Turkey has certainly proved that Muslims can, and post-Arafat developments in Palestine bode well for Arab democracy), but whether democracy can be successfully imposed by outside military force. The historical record in this respect resembles a train wreck. Japan and Germany are the bright points, but they were already modern industrial nations and had just had the living daylights beaten out of them, substantially reducing their will to fight against the occupation...

Would you say that we are 'turning the corner' in Iraq?


I've been hearing how thigns are turning around for the past two years. Forgive me if I am skeptical of your rosy outlook.

Pardon me, I've never said anything was "rosy". I said it was a dirty job and we have to do it and the President has said we'll do it for as long as it takes. I agree with that and voted for him to fulfill that obligation.

That's the way democracy works.

This also takes me back to a point that was made about Al Qaeda attackign the United State awhile ago. Suicide Bombers are about the scariest thing I can think of. We have a shot at stopping 9/11 scale attacks. But what would happen if someone from Al Qaeda walked into a mall in the USA and went into the food court and detonated a bomb attached to his body once a month or so. That's terror. That would scare the shit out of every American more than any large scale attack(barring some insane 24 scenario) could. Glad the bad guys haven't figured that out yet.

I was thinking about this, and it wouldn't last. Y'know the first time this happen, the Patriot Act will look mighty good and the White House will start rounding up and deporting anyone that looks remotely Middle Eastern as well as any that advocate questioning White House policy (Michael Moore might be sweating in some relocation camp in Nevada).

David Cross has stated that you cannot win a war on terror, "it's like having a war on jealousy".

I watched the Battle for Algiers which is an interesting docu-drama about France's method of dealing with terrorist insurgency in Algeria in the 50's. It didn't turn out well.

Meanwhile, North Korea has nukes, and Iran is eyeing the process to discourage a very aggressive U.S. policy from entering their borders.

And the UN will ignore the whole ordeal since Bush thumbed his nose at them.

But I disagree with anyone who states this is another Vietnam. Vietnam happened to counteract Communism. Iraq is just about resources, I really think Team Bush was thinking that if they could create democracy smack in the middle of the Muslim world that it would be a feather in their cap, and that oil would be a nice plunder. I have given up on trying to justify this disaster.

I was thinking about this, and it wouldn't last. Y'know the first time this happen, the Patriot Act will look mighty good and the White House will start rounding up and deporting anyone that looks remotely Middle Eastern as well as any that advocate questioning White House policy (Michael Moore might be sweating in some relocation camp in Nevada).

Left-wing fear mongering? Fair to say or not?

David Cross has stated that you cannot win a war on terror, "it's like having a war on jealousy".

I agree, sort of. I believe the long-term success (or containment) of terror requires strong people represented governments that demand their own governments crack down on internal terrorism. And fair governments that don't blame everything on the USA so the population will direct their attention elsewhere. Which is why I agree with the Clinton Regime Change in Rogue States belief which Bush is now fulfilling.

I watched the Battle for Algiers which is an interesting docu-drama about France's method of dealing with terrorist insurgency in Algeria in the 50's. It didn't turn out well.

"I didn't fail to make a light-bulb 2,000 times, I learned 2,000 different ways not to make a lightbulb." -- Benjamin Franklin (paraphrased, I'm sure)

Meanwhile, North Korea has nukes, and Iran is eyeing the process to discourage a very aggressive U.S. policy from entering their borders.

North Korea has nukes, yes. That is a failure of China as NK falls directly in their sphere of influence. Iraq having nukes falls directly in the US's sphere of influence. Poor peace loving Iran and very aggressive US Policy? What college do you attend? ;)

And the UN will ignore the whole ordeal since Bush thumbed his nose at them.

The UN thumbed their noses at Bush.

But I disagree with anyone who states this is another Vietnam. Vietnam happened to counteract Communism. Iraq is just about resources, I really think Team Bush was thinking that if they could create democracy smack in the middle of the Muslim world that it would be a feather in their cap, and that oil would be a nice plunder. I have given up on trying to justify this disaster.

You think like a college blogger. That is simply teen-age angst romantic revolutionary blather. Sorry to be blunt.

Are they really?

US battle deaths by year:

Prior to 1966 - 3,078 (Total up through 31 Dec 65)
1966 - 5,008
1967 - 9,378
1968 - 14, 589
1969 - 9,414
1970 - 4,221
1971 - 1,381
1972 - 300

Do you want to compare WWI deaths to WWII deaths?

"I didn't fail to make a light-bulb 2,000 times, I learned 2,000 different ways not to make a lightbulb." -- Benjamin Franklin (paraphrased, I'm sure)You might want to double-check that quote...it's not the paraphrasing you should be concerned about.

Let's just pull the troops out and let Iraqi's fend for themselves just like the brits did to a bunch of terrorists in 1770-s - 80's and those terrorists turned out fine.

Pardon me, I've never said anything was "rosy". I said it was a dirty job and we have to do it and the President has said we'll do it for as long as it takes. I agree with that and voted for him to fulfill that obligation.

"GIT-R-DUN" right? Who cares about taking care of people in THIS COUNTRY!? Who cares about the illegal alien crisis and how it's bankrupting California hospitals? After all, California is a "Blue State" so it doesn't matter.

We're $205 Billion deep now after what, 2 years? To remove Saddam Hussein and his WMD's? Ok, we're in Iraq, pissing off more people (you know, the same people who flew planes into some buildings), and have accomplished NOTHING. We haven't even caught bin Laden or al-Zarqawi. What happened to "Mission Accomplished"?

What about "Bring 'em on!"? Did you see all of those people yesterday? There sure did look scared at the prospect of someone bringing it on.

Face it. You've been sold a line of BS by the war machine.

That's the way democracy works.

Really? So are you all for us going to North Korea after this? Then Africa? Maybe round it off with some Iran? Force our American Democracy down their throats? Show them what "freedom" is like?

David Cross has stated that you cannot win a war on terror, "it's like having a war on jealousy".


What about a war on drugs? :)

When will people realize that acts like this are what caused 9/11. Not our "freedom" as some would want you to believe.


Ok, dude. Just move to Canada so we can be done with you and you can relax.

Left-wing fear mongering? Fair to say or not?

I wouldn't say I'm left-wing, but I would said I do fear for the future. If an Iraqi bombed us right now, could be not say it was justified after the tens of thousands (being generous) of innocents have been killed...for what purpose?

I'm also afraid of what this is doing to our economy.

North Korea has nukes, yes. That is a failure of China as NK falls directly in their sphere of influence. Iraq having nukes falls directly in the US's sphere of influence. Poor peace loving Iran and very aggressive US Policy? What college do you attend? ;)

So what you're saying is Iran is aggressive and the US is not. Let me know when Iran opens military bases across the globe and removes leaders of other countries because they want to impose THEIR Sharia Law and their system on others.

But what would happen if someone from Al Qaeda walked into a mall in the USA and went into the food court and detonated a bomb attached to his body once a month or so. That's terror. That would scare the shit out of every American more than any large scale attack(barring some insane 24 scenario) could. Glad the bad guys haven't figured that out yet.
No, they're not that stupid. If "the terrorists" open fire on civilian targets in the US like malls and stadiums, it will be open season on all Middle Eastern countries. Forget Geneva, forget Abu Ghraib and the US will have every European country in lock step again them. Having a uniform world with the US, as well as handing the US an open check for brutal interrogation tactics would escalate this to a level not many terrorist leaders would like to have.

Everyone thinks that the terrorists want to launch some major attack on the US in hopes it scares the people. I think the terrorists are actually smarter than that (for right now). Regardless of what some want to believe, groups like Al Qaeda have been hampered from a financial standpoint. Mounting an all out attack against US interests at their current state could be a major blow to their ability to inspire terror in the Middle East. As it stands now, it's all located in Iraq - which is far enough from the US to create apathy on many US citizens (with many US and world groups tiring of the effort). The worst thing for Al Qaeda to do right now is reinspire American resolve.

This, BTW, is one of the reasons it is important to get Iraq on the right path. If the terrorists lose the ability to terrorize Iraq and afghanistan, they will be forced to go into Iran (where the mullahs want little to do with them), or Syria or the Sudan (two countries with governments deathly afraid of pissing off the US). Saudi Arabia and Jordan have done a much better job at handing over terrorists, so it's not all that safe for them to hang out there as well.

As to predictions, I expect the US to be dealing with these hit and runs for another two years - with their frequency decreasing as time moves on. Eventually, the terrorists will start focusing more on picking up recruits in the Sudan, Syria and Palestinian territories and less on keeping up a major presence in Iraq. It's not going to be easy and I expect the aggrivation level to be very high for many US citizens by the end of 05. Still, it's the best course to take and should keep the terrorists from being able to recoup and launch any kind of major assault against US or Europe for the next few years. At which point apathy will kick in, the US will leave Iraq and the terrorists will start plotting their next target.

Ok, dude. Just move to Canada so we can be done with you and you can relax.

So you think that the reason 9/11 happened is because the terrorists "hate our freedom"?

When will people realize that acts like this are what caused 9/11. Not our "freedom" as some would want you to believe.
Can you go into more detail about what you mean by this?

No, they're not that stupid. If "the terrorists" open fire on civilian targets in the US like malls and stadiums, it will be open season on all Middle Eastern countries. Forget Geneva, forget Abu Ghraib and the US will have every European country in lock step again them. Having a uniform world with the US, as well as handing the US an open check for brutal interrogation tactics would escalate this to a level not many terrorist leaders would like to have.

"Forget Geneva, forget Abu Ghraib" Isn't that what they did @ Abu Ghraib? Forget Geneva?

I have a feeling that if things like that happened (more bombings/attacks in the US) there would be people who feel we deserved. That we've now brought this on ourselves.

The worst thing for Al Qaeda to do right now is reinspire American resolve.

Yeah, who knows that that famous Gee-Dubya "resolve" will do next! Maybe next time he'll go after Iran!

Can you go into more detail about what you mean by this?

Imposing American will, morality, and "democracy" across the globe is what upsets people, not our freedom.

We're $205 Billion deep now after what, 2 years?
Just imagine we spent that money on Education or social welfare. The results in education achievement and unemployment/poverty would pretty much be at the same level as now. But, atleast you could sleep better knowing the money was thrown away on a good cause instead of "wasted" on Iraq.

Ok, we're in Iraq, pissing off more people (you know, the same people who flew planes into some buildings), and have accomplished NOTHING. We haven't even caught bin Laden or al-Zarqawi. What happened to "Mission Accomplished"?
Outside of troops stationed in Iraq and afghanistan, how many attacks have their been against US interests since late 01? How many USS Coles? How many attacks on embassies? How many attacks on US civilians? Seems to me like US citizens have been safer over the past three seasons than any point in the last few decades.

Really? So are you all for us going to North Korea after this? Then Africa? Maybe round it off with some Iran? Force our American Democracy down their throats? Show them what "freedom" is like?
Nah, we get the Middle East in order and there won't be anyone left to buy the nukes from North Korea or Iran. In the meantime, the best course of action is to continually slow down their ability to proliferate - ie, don't hand over Nuclear secrets to get a worthless piece of paper from each. I just wish Europe would get that same clue. But, they've only been bit on this with Hitler, WWII Japan, Russia, Iraq, Iran, Iraq again, China and North Korea. They probably need another 3-4 events before they figure out the idea that dictators may not always abide by signed contracts.

No, they're not that stupid. If "the terrorists" open fire on civilian targets in the US like malls and stadiums, it will be open season on all Middle Eastern countries. Forget Geneva, forget Abu Ghraib and the US will have every European country in lock step again them. Having a uniform world with the US, as well as handing the US an open check for brutal interrogation tactics would escalate this to a level not many terrorist leaders would like to have.


You have considerably more faith in the European countries than I do. There have been several terrorist attacks in Europe on civilian targets without any massive retaliation or global outcry, do you really believe if it were to happen in the US that would change their outlook? Perhaps, but I would be more inclined to believe they would express sympathy, but further distance themselves from us and try to make it a "US versus the terrorists" issue.

Imposing American will, morality, and "democrazy" across the globe is what upsets people, not our freedom.
That's about equally as ignorant and simplistic a view as the "they hate our freedom" argument.

That's about equally as ignorant and simplistic a view as the "they hate our freedom" argument.

So what do you think it is, then?

"Forget Geneva, forget Abu Ghraib" Isn't that what they did @ Abu Ghraib? Forget Geneva?

I have a feeling that if things like that happened (more bombings/attacks in the US) there would be people who feel we deserved. That we've now brought this on ourselves.
Who cares? It would be suicide for their cause. Even terrorists are not that dense.

You have considerably more faith in the European countries than I do. There have been several terrorist attacks in Europe on civilian targets without any massive retaliation or global outcry, do you really believe if it were to happen in the US that would change their outlook? Perhaps, but I would be more inclined to believe they would express sympathy, but further distance themselves from us and try to make it a "US versus the terrorists" issue.
Maybe, but atleast they will stay out of our way. Which, in many cases, may be more valuable than all the strings we would need to add to get their meager donations and 10 troops.

"GIT-R-DUN" right? Who cares about taking care of people in THIS COUNTRY!? Who cares about the illegal alien crisis and how it's bankrupting California hospitals? After all, California is a "Blue State" so it doesn't matter.

We're $205 Billion deep now after what, 2 years? To remove Saddam Hussein and his WMD's? Ok, we're in Iraq, pissing off more people (you know, the same people who flew planes into some buildings), and have accomplished NOTHING. We haven't even caught bin Laden or al-Zarqawi. What happened to "Mission Accomplished"?

What about "Bring 'em on!"? Did you see all of those people yesterday? There sure did look scared at the prospect of someone bringing it on.

Face it. You've been sold a line of BS by the war machine.



Really? So are you all for us going to North Korea after this? Then Africa? Maybe round it off with some Iran? Force our American Democracy down their throats? Show them what "freedom" is like?


i agree with rex here.

i really wish USA would go back to being an isolationist country, like we were during the pre-Pearl Harbor era.

So you think that the reason 9/11 happened is because the terrorists "hate our freedom"?

It's a compicated issue but surely you aren't arguing America deserved or brought this upon themselves. At least I hope you don't think that.

Surely you must recognize the hate shared by these people and the vast cultural difference that led to such actions as coming to America and doing what they did.

They had no problem bringing a fight to American soil so I have no problem with America taking it to them. Lucky for the country we as American try and help rebuild it. I suspect if the tables were turned we would not be so fortunate and Iraq would level this whole place if they could.

There's no way the level of hate they possess comes from America spreading democracy alone. Strapping a bomb to your chest goes beyond disliking our form of government.

Just imagine we spent that money on Education or social welfare. The results in education achievement and unemployment/poverty would pretty much be at the same level as now. But, atleast you could sleep better knowing the money was thrown away on a "good cause" instead of wasted on Iraq.

They may be at the same level, they may not. Or we could solve Social Security. Or we could deal with the trade defecit a bit more.

Outside of troops stationed in Iraq and afghanistan, how many attacks have their been against US interests since late 01? How many USS Coles? How many attacks on embassies? How many attacks on US civilians? Seems to me like US citizens have been safer over the past three seasons than any point in the last decade.

Well hell, After the World Trade Center bombing in 93 there were no attacks by foreigners on US soil either. Clinton did a helluva job, huh? lol

Nah, we get the Middle East in order and there won't be anyone left to buy the nukes from North Korea or Iran. In the meantime, the best course of action is to continually slow down their ability to proliferate - ie, don't hand over Nuclear secrets to get a worthless piece of paper from each. I just wish Europe would get that same clue. But, they've only been bit on this with Hitler, WWII Japan, Russia, Iraq, Iran, Iraq again, China and North Korea. They probably need another 3-4 events before they figure out the idea that dictators may not always abide by signed contracts.

Yeah. We've never dealt with dictators. We're above that. Sorry, I forgot.

i agree with rex here.

i really wish USA would go back to being an isolationist country, like we were during the pre-Pearl Harbor era.
Yet, in spite of all that isolationism, Pearl Harbor still happened....

Isolationism is just about impossible as a world power today. With the flow of information it's much, much harder to bury your head in the sand.

Just imagine we spent that money on Education or social welfare. The results in education achievement and unemployment/poverty would pretty much be at the same level as now. But, atleast you could sleep better knowing the money was thrown away on a good cause instead of "wasted" on Iraq.
Well hell, why even collect taxes if the money is good for nothing?

Outside of troops stationed in Iraq and afghanistan, how many attacks have their been against US interests since late 01? How many USS Coles? How many attacks on embassies? How many attacks on US civilians? Seems to me like US citizens have been safer over the past three seasons than any point in the last few decades.
So your argument is, "Except for the thousands of soldiers that are killed and wounded, US citizens are safe". You know, except for the crime victims, NY City residents are 100% safe from crime! There were a couple thousand deaths from terrorism in the US in the decades before the war, and a couple thousand American deaths after the war, so it's hard to say that the war made Americans safer. Invading a country that could not attack us and wasn't aiding those that wanted to attack us does not make us safer. Iraq was not about national security.

They may be at the same level, they may not.
You could make the same claim on another 9-11 or domestic attack without the US acts in Iraq.

Well hell, After the World Trade Center bombing in 93 there were no attacks by foreigners on US soil either. Clinton did a helluva job, huh? lol
I didn't say "US soil" I said "US interests". And we know there were attacks on numerous US interests including the USS Cole, as well as the US allowing Al Qaeda to grow unfettered and plan the events of 9-11. While I don't think Clinton was to blame for all of that, I don't see how anyone could state (with the benefit of hindsight) that the US was "safe" from terror during the late 90s.

Yeah. We've never dealt with dictators. We're above that. Sorry, I forgot.
It's not about being above anything - it's about not being stupid. For every treaty with dictator that worked out well for the US with no use of force I can name about 10 that didn't. What we did with North Korea in the late 90s was stupid - and there are many that want us to make that exact same mistake again.

Yet, in spite of all that isolationism, Pearl Harbor still happened....

but *would* they have attacked had they known of our nuclear capabilities? i highly doubt it.

so if we go back to being an isolationist country, let every other country fend for themselves, i don't think anyone would bother us, i highly believe that. we have nukes, attacking the US would be akin to shooting yourself in the foot. we wouldn't require such a huge defense budget, wouldn't prop up Japan - one of our biggest competitors in many markets - by paying to defend them, we could divert a significant portion of our defense budget and do some really neat things with that money for...who?...for Americans, that's who. not to mention more good will would be generated due to us not being in everyone's business. we do ourselves more harm in the long run i think acting like Team America - World Police than by minding our own business.

It's a compicated issue but surely you aren't arguing America deserved or brought this upon themselves. At least I hope you don't think that.

Deserve it? I don't think those people in the WTC deserved to die, no. I do think, however, that our government is very irresponsible in regards to foreign affairs and set us up for something of that magnitude.

Surely you must recognize the hate shared by these people and the vast cultural difference that led to such actions as coming to America and doing what they did.

Yeah. People are pissed at the US. A radical fringe took the next step and attacked us.

They had no problem bringing a fight to American soil so I have no problem with America taking it to them. Lucky for the country we as American try and help rebuild it. I suspect if the tables were turned we would not be so fortunate and Iraq would level this whole place if they could.

I have no problem with us going to Afghanistan. Iraq, however, has proved to be a war started under false pretenses. That is a bad precident to set or make in this day in age. Now there are estimates that 100,000 Iraqi civilians are dead.

Strapping a bomb to your chest goes beyond disliking our form of government.

It certainly does! Like I said, it's not that they hate our "freedom" or our form of government. Maybe they hate OUR government?

Yet, in spite of all that isolationism, Pearl Harbor still happened....

The US was not really all that isolationist in the 1st half of the 20th century--the expansion/quest for supremacy in the Pacific and the annexation of colonies after the Spanish-American war are not the actions of an isolationist government...

While I don't think Clinton was to blame for all of that, I don't see how anyone could state (with the benefit of hindsight) that the US was "safe" from terror during the late 90s.

The same way you're saying we are now.

It's not about being above anything - it's about not being stupid. For every treaty with dictator that worked out well for the US with no use of force I can name about 10 that didn't. What we did with North Korea in the late 90s was stupid - and there are many that want us to make that exact same mistake again.

Maybe if our military wasn't fighting under false pretenses in Iraq we'd have a little bit more might @ the bargaining table (w/ NK), huh?

Well hell, why even collect taxes if the money is good for nothing?
I would much rather err on that said than they one we've been heading towards over the past 5-10 years.

So your argument is, "Except for the thousands of soldiers that are killed and wounded, US citizens are safe". You know, except for the crime victims, NY City residents are 100% safe from crime!
Soldiers aren't drafted, they sign up and know the risks. A better analogy would be if no citizens died in NY but 50 cops did. Would it be tragic? Sure, you don't want to see cops die. But that's their job - to be in the line of fire so citizens don't have to be.

There were a couple thousand deaths from terrorism in the US in the decades before the war, and a couple thousand American deaths after the war, so it's hard to say that the war made Americans safer.
It's always hard to tell when America is "safe from Terror". All you can do is look at attacks on non-military interests and the state of the enemy that may be doing the attacking. And, I can't remember a time in the last decade when the US has had fewer attacks on its non-combat interests and a weaker terrorism opponent that the current Al Qaeda crew. And that's about the best you are going to get in today's world.

Invading a country that could not attack us and wasn't aiding those that wanted to attack us does not make us safer. Iraq was not about national security.
What was it about then? Oil? Haliburton? Bush being bored? For all these people that think Iraq wasn't about national security, I would really be interested to hear why people like Hillary Clinton, Kerry, Daschle, Gore and Joe Biden favored military action from 98-02 if it wasn't about national security.

Maybe if our military wasn't fighting under false pretenses in Iraq we'd have a little bit more might @ the bargaining table (w/ NK), huh?
Like we had in the mid 90s under Clinton?

So what do you think it is, then?There are many factors, not the least of which is that many people in those countries grow up in poverty with very little opportunity. The look for something, anything, to do with their lives and wind up falling into the terrorist ranks. Democracy should, in theory, improve that situation.

Another is that many devout Muslims believe that their faith instructs them to defend their home land against invaders (passive jihad), and others even believe it is their duty to seek out and destroy infidels (active jihad). The latter group is far less common than the first, despite what you hear from the talking heads. The current war should, in theory, make this situation worse.

But a far bigger factor is that many in the middle east believe, and with good reason, that the US is only out for itself, acts only in its own best interests, and doesn't give a damn about them or their lives. They further believe, with good reason, that the US pays lip service to concepts like freedom and justice but won't lift a finger to help them when it's needed. The US talked a good game about democracy in the 1990s, then stood aside while the GIA massacred tens of thousands in Algeria. The US encouraged Iraqis to rise up against Saddam in the first gulf war, then stopped short of Baghdad and left the insurgents to be slaughtered.

And this is the part of history that the simplistic "we need to get out of Iraq now" people don't understand. So much of the hatred towards America is because of exactly that sort of thinking -- that the US shouldn't dirty its hands once the hard work starts. Whatever you think of George Bush, or how we got here, or even about war in general, you have to see that leaving Iraq today (almost certianly triggering a civil war that could kill hundred of thousands and displace millions) would the worst possible move at this point.

The US was not really all that isolationist in the 1st half of the 20th century--the expansion/quest for supremacy in the Pacific and the annexation of colonies after the Spanish-American war are not the actions of an isolationist government...
I think that's kind of the point. In today's culture (and even that of the early 20th century), there's too much world knowledge available for a major super-power like the US to be "isolationist". It's comparable to the US intelligence agencies in the 1800s (ie, Marshalls) and them today. In the 1800s, rail barrons and outlaws could roam the west without a great fear of being caught. You can't kidnap a kid in Montana and flee to Idaho today and not risk federal involvement.

Just look at the world pressure on the US to step in with the Sudan. You think if we didn't enter Iraq that there would be no pressure from the world to help Somalia, Sudan, Serbia, Rwanda, ... The moment the US enters any of those countries they could create a new group of terrorists - it's a losing battle to think that the US can avoid pissing off certain groups in today's world.

they don't even want to defend themselves. participation in the Iraqi Army is pitiful. how is this going to get better if they can't even organize a decent Army and a way to police themselves? waste of time, waste of (American) lives.

Like we had in the mid 90s under Clinton?

You won't find me defending Bill Clinton in regards to this.

...

When will people realize that acts like this are what caused 9/11. ....
My first Reaction to this statement. You are a moron.

After some thought I decided to leave that there, while I continued with more.

I do agree with you to a degree, it wasn't "our Freedom" anymore than it was our fault. That was your point right? It was our fault.

These guys are evil men in the business of terror and murder. Terror and murder makes them powerful. They need enemies, and the U.S. is a great target to declare your hatred upon. We are bigger and more prevalent than the zionists, but we are allied with the zionists. That relationship just increases the ability of these people to use religion to misguide their "disciples".

And this is the part of history that the simplistic "we need to get out of Iraq now" people don't understand. So much of the hatred towards America is because of exactly that sort of thinking -- that the US shouldn't dirty its hands once the hard work starts. Whatever you think of George Bush, or how we got here, or even about war in general, you have to see that leaving Iraq today (almost certianly triggering a civil war that could kill hundred of thousands and displace millions) would the worst possible move at this point.

That's the best point rex of sc et al don't take to heart.

Also, I wish people would stop repeating the canard that the war was started under false pretenses. The invasion of Iraq was based on a # of motives, only one of which can be questioned, and that is the idea that Hussein had WMD's and was willing to use them. And even that, you can't go back and say, "well it's obvious Blair and Bush and Powell and pretty much the rest of the world SHOULD have known that Hussein had gotten rid of his WMDs!" It's an absurd position to take, given everything we know now. Were they wrong about the existence of WMD's? Probably. Was it stupid for them to believe what they did? I can't see how.

That's the best point rex of sc et al don't take to heart.

Also, I wish people would stop repeating the canard that the war was started under false pretenses. The invasion of Iraq was based on a # of motives, only one of which can be questioned, and that is the idea that Hussein had WMD's and was willing to use them. And even that, you can't go back and say, "well it's obvious Blair and Bush and Powell and pretty much the rest of the world SHOULD have known that Hussein had gotten rid of his WMDs!" It's an absurd position to take, given everything we know now. Were they wrong about the existence of WMD's? Probably. Was it stupid for them to believe what they did? I can't see how.

Exactly and somehow the view the Iraq brought this upon THEMSELVES is never even considered.

Also, I wish people would stop repeating the canard that the war was started under false pretenses. The invasion of Iraq was based on a # of motives, only one of which can be questioned, and that is the idea that Hussein had WMD's and was willing to use them.


I don't agree with that. A major justification for the war with Iraq was the War on Terror. I believed then and continue to believe that the Iraq war did nothing more than divert our primary military focus away from the war on terror and into nation building in an unrelated Middle Eastern country. I believe there were polls that came out before the presidential election showing that people voting for Bush strongly believe that Iraq and the War on Terror are synonymous, while people voting against bush strongly believe that Iraq and the War on Terror have nothing to do with each other.

Saddam was a bad guy, terrible things were going on in Iraq, its a good thing Saddam is gone. I hope democracy succeeds there. But, in my mind, all of our reasons for going to war with Iraq were flawed. Add on the fact that we had near unanimous world support and an amazingly strong, united atmosphere with all of the powers of the world going into Afghanastan and going to "get" Osama, and we threw away all that goodwill in a matter of months going into Iraq.

Its not as simple as WMDs.

And my apologies for where this post will take the thread... I probably just ruined any other discussion that was occuring here, my bad.

Add on the fact that we had near unanimous world support and an amazingly strong, united atmosphere with all of the powers of the world going into Afghanastan and going to "get" Osama, and we threw away all that goodwill in a matter of months going into Iraq.


Well, 21 different countries sent troops to invade Iraq, but never mind that...

The worst thing for Al Qaeda to do right now is reinspire American resolve.


That is an excellent point that I had not really thought about.

I have my doubts about how the rest of the world would react if something else started happening within the US borders, and the type of reaction you predict scares me quite a bit. The reason I love the USA is that we seem to remain above the scum of the world. We can react, with mighty force, to those that hurt us, but I cannot begin to describe the personal struggle i would go through if the scenario you describe came to pass. I'm mainly talking about a world where we openly use torture and, as you put it, "Forget Geneva." I think you're right, and that's what scares me. That's not a USA I want to live in.

Additionally, the other thing everyone mentions right away is the use of the Patriot act and the deportation of middle easterners. And what I don't think others have mentioned is another big step towards an Orwellian society. Additional monitering, additional security, more power for the police and less penalties for abuse of that power... all in all a much scarier society to live in IMO. I understand, it'd be a different world, and it wouldn't be our fault, but I think that terrorists could force our hands in many different ways by scaring the shit out of our citizens within our borders and could forever change the freedom we currently have in the US, in a very negative way.

I don't agree with that. A major justification for the war with Iraq was the War on Terror. I believed then and continue to believe that the Iraq war did nothing more than divert our primary military focus away from the war on terror and into nation building in an unrelated Middle Eastern country. I believe there were polls that came out before the presidential election showing that people voting for Bush strongly believe that Iraq and the War on Terror are synonymous, while people voting against bush strongly believe that Iraq and the War on Terror have nothing to do with each other.The fact of the matter is that WMDs was a small part of the reason for going to war with Iraq. But Bush et al made a decision to choose that as their justification to the public -- they probably figured it would be an easier sound-bite to sell than the more important (but more complex) factors.

So while it's not really accurate to trot out the "false pretenses" line, it doesn't really bother me to see Bush pay the penalty for it. He made his bed, now he gets to lie in it.

My first Reaction to this statement. You are a moron.

After some thought I decided to leave that there, while I continued with more.

I do agree with you to a degree, it wasn't "our Freedom" anymore than it was our fault. That was your point right? It was our fault.

My point is that we have done things to make people upset at us. Then we act shocked when they act on it? Then we go to a country that wasn't involved?

These guys are evil men in the business of terror and murder. Terror and murder makes them powerful.

The same can be said of our government.

That relationship just increases the ability of these people to use religion to misguide their "disciples".

Same can be said of Bush.

hxxp://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37944-2003Jun26?language=printer

"God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam [ Hussein], which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East."

There are many factors, not the least of which is that many people in those countries grow up in poverty with very little opportunity. The look for something, anything, to do with their lives and wind up falling into the terrorist ranks. Democracy should, in theory, improve that situation.

Another is that many devout Muslims believe that their faith instructs them to defend their home land against invaders (passive jihad), and others even believe it is their duty to seek out and destroy infidels (active jihad). The latter group is far less common than the first, despite what you hear from the talking heads. The current war should, in theory, make this situation worse.

But a far bigger factor is that many in the middle east believe, and with good reason, that the US is only out for itself, acts only in its own best interests, and doesn't give a damn about them or their lives. They further believe, with good reason, that the US pays lip service to concepts like freedom and justice but won't lift a finger to help them when it's needed. The US talked a good game about democracy in the 1990s, then stood aside while the GIA massacred tens of thousands in Algeria. The US encouraged Iraqis to rise up against Saddam in the first gulf war, then stopped short of Baghdad and left the insurgents to be slaughtered.

And this is the part of history that the simplistic "we need to get out of Iraq now" people don't understand. So much of the hatred towards America is because of exactly that sort of thinking -- that the US shouldn't dirty its hands once the hard work starts. Whatever you think of George Bush, or how we got here, or even about war in general, you have to see that leaving Iraq today (almost certianly triggering a civil war that could kill hundred of thousands and displace millions) would the worst possible move at this point.

You're right, the line I gave was too simplistic. I agree with nearly all of your post...I'll write more later.

Well, 21 different countries sent troops to invade Iraq, but never mind that...


This is true, but the public support for the US took a noted and drastic swing. Many of those countries supported the US without the support of their own people.

A number of those countries have since pulled all of their troops out, most notably Spain, Portugal, The Philippines, and the Central American countries that were there. The Netherlands, Ukraine, Poland and Italy have committed to pulling their troops out in 2005 as well. The numbers I'm looking at leave South Korea and the UK as our only serious allies still with us here.

Haven't a few of those countries leader's lost power as a result of their support of the US? Spain being the big one? Tony Blair remained in power but took signifigant hits in Parliament despite a booming economy credited mainly to his party.. at least that's my very very high level understanding.

Exactly and somehow the view the Iraq brought this upon THEMSELVES is never even considered.

Iraq or Saddam?

He made his bed, now he gets to lie in it.

and others get to die/have died for it. nice.

My point is that we have done things to make people upset at us. Then we act shocked when they act on it? Then we go to a country that wasn't involved?



The same can be said of our government.



That is an outrageous and ignorant statement, as pathetic as the bumper stickers I've seen saying 'Bush is worse than the Taliban'.

Iraq or Saddam?

well gee, wasn't Saddam in charge over there?

I mean what's your point here? America is evil and sucks? Fine.

I prefer to have more faith in my fellow countrymen.

He made his bed, now he gets to lie in it.
and others get to die/have died for it. nice.
I think Maple Leaf is saying that the war has/had justifiable reasons outside of WMD - thereby making it the right decision. His point is that Bush just happened to choose WMD as the main factor to pitch the public and is therefore paying more of a political price for it than if he would have focused more on the whole of Iraq's actions. I think this is a fair point, especially towards the end (in the start, all reasons were referenced). Had Bush been less transfixed on WMD then I think the fair-minded people might be more apt to support the war effort than some may be right now. Not that it would have mattered to the partisans, but I think it is a good point for the others.

Do you want to compare WWI deaths to WWII deaths?

Sure. There's no question that from the United States perspective, WWII cost more. I'm not sure what you're tyring to say. Are you saying that casualties decrease over time? That 1,000 casualties in the first year of Iraq (give or take) are roughly equal to say 14,000 KIA in 1968? Or are you throwing in WWI because our enemies got better at killing us between 1918 and 1941? So the casualty rate should naturally increase? Or is there some other point that you're making that I'm not getting? Or do you just care about political and media views and not the actual toll in American lives when you say it's as bad as Vietnam? I'd tend to disagree with that view as well, but neither of those issues can be quantified.

US Battle Deaths:

WWI: 53,402

WWII: 291,557

Korea: 33,741

Had Bush been less transfixed on WMD then I think the fair-minded people might be more apt to support the war effort than some may be right now. Not that it would have mattered to the partisans, but I think it is a good point for the others.


I think this is very possibly true for me personally and for many others in the middle, yes. But, as I stated above, my problems with the war went beyond the WMD fixation so I may well have ended up opposed anyway. But as a result I continue to think of the iraq war as a whole as a signifigant failure of the Bush administration, no matter what the end result turns out to be, to the point that I don't think I could ever vote for anyone in his cabinet for anything, pretty much ever.

I continue to look for things to get behind him on, social security and the tax code overhaul being things I really want to like... but so far I'm disillusioned with how the 2nd term is starting out as well.

My point is that we have done things to make people upset at us. Then we act shocked when they act on it? Then we go to a country that wasn't involved?



The same can be said of our government.



Same can be said of Bush.

hxxp://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37944-2003Jun26?language=printer

"God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam [ Hussein], which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East."
Yes you are right. We brought this all upon ourselves. If we hadn't done anything internationally over the past fifteen years the like of Al Qaeda would have just shriveled up and gone away. They wouldn't have manufactured some reason to hate or target the United States even if we hadn't gone to war several times to aid muslim people(Kuwait, The Balkans, Kosovo, Somalia).

You're also correct that our government is just as evil as those who plotted to fly hijacked planes carrying hundreds of people into buildings holding thousands of innocents. George Bush is just as evil as the bastard who convinced a desperate individual to walk into a Pizza parlor and kill dozens of innocent men women and children.

And yes some out of context quote by our President is tantamount to marshalling our impoverished, voiceless, and hopeless masses to rise up in a righteous furor and smite our enemies.


An nevermind. What am I thinking. You're just a moron.

You're also correct that our government is just as evil as those who plotted to fly hijacked planes carrying hundreds of people into buildings holding thousands of innocents. George Bush is just as evil as the bastard who convinced a desperate individual to walk into a Pizza parlor and kill dozens of innocent men women and children.

What's the difference between dropping a bomb on civilians and flying a plane into a building of civilians?

And yes some out of context quote by our President is tantamount to marshalling our impoverished, voiceless, and hopeless masses to rise up in a righteous furor and smite our enemies.

How is that quote out of context?

Sure. There's no question that from the United States perspective, WWII cost more. I'm not sure what you're tyring to say. Are you saying that casualties decrease over time? That 1,000 casualties in the first year of Iraq (give or take) are roughly equal to say 14,000 KIA in 1968? Or are you throwing in WWI because our enemies got better at killing us between 1918 and 1941? So the casualty rate should naturally increase? Or is there some other point that you're making that I'm not getting? Or do you just care about political and media views and not the actual toll in American lives when you say it's as bad as Vietnam? I'd tend to disagree with that view as well, but neither of those issues can be quantified.

US Battle Deaths:

WWI: 53,402

WWII: 291,557

Korea: 33,741

It's as bad in Vietnam in that the soldiers will begin to (and are) questioning why they're there in large numbers, and we'll stay with no end in sight.

As far as the numbers, war has come a long way technologically so you won't see WWII #s or even Vietnam numbers of out of this conflict.

Or do you just care about political and media views and not the actual toll in American lives when you say it's as bad as Vietnam? I'd tend to disagree with that view as well, but neither of those issues can be quantified.



As far as the Vietnam - Iraq comparison goes, as with everything else, you can cite any statistic to support any point. For example, early in the thread in a criticism of the "Iraq is worse than Vietnam" argument, you cited yearly battle deaths. Someone else could argue that if you equalize the number of combat troops on the ground (there were 3x as many in Vietnam), look at casualty rates and/or adjust for the percentage of non-lethal casualties that would have been lethal in Vietnam--statistically, if you look at casualty rate per 100 combat soldiers, it would be more of a dead heat.

In the end, I would agree with one of your points--it is difficult to make quantitative comparisons from war to war, and on top of that, it is difficult to make it meaningful, since inherently there is too much variation as to cause, operation, etc. from war to war.

IMO, you lose the comparison to Vietnam based on the fact there was no draft. No one is in Iraq that didn't sign up and join the military on their own free will. That is the biggest difference and the main reason why Vietnam comparisons don't hold up.

IMO, you lose the comparison to Vietnam based on the fact there was no draft. No one is in Iraq that didn't sign up and join the military on their own free will. That is the biggest difference and the main reason why Vietnam comparisons don't hold up.

This is true. However, do you think the soldiers' morale will remain high? That's what I'm getting at.

What's the difference between dropping a bomb on civilians and flying a plane into a building of civilians?
Intent. Give an example where this administration or the millitary under his command have explicitly targeted civilians with heavy munitions.


How is that quote out of context?
It is a single sentence taken out of a larger body of statements. It is being used to singularly characterize a position or opinion, when it doesn't adequately do so on its own.

Intent. Give an example where this administration or the millitary under his command have explicitly targeted civilians with heavy munitions.
The terrorists intent was to further a political goal. America's intent was to further a political goal. Both goals required the deaths of thousands of people in order to be fulfilled.

The terrorists intent was to further a political goal.

I'm sorry, but you can't honestly come up with a metaphysics or a morality or a political worldview that makes the actions of al-qaeda on 9/11 a legitimate political tool. It's a totally unfair comparison and you know it.

Intent. Give an example where this administration or the millitary under his command have explicitly targeted civilians with heavy munitions.

Doesn't really matter to me if they're primarily targeted or not. What would you say if your child lost his/her legs in a terrorist attack, assuming the terrorist was attempting to blow up the Pentagon (a military target)?

It is a single sentence taken out of a larger body of statements. It is being used to singularly characterize a position or opinion, when it doesn't adequately do so on its own.

It certainly does, unless you're arguing that god hasn't been an ongoing theme for Bush?

I'm sorry, but you can't honestly come up with a metaphysics or a morality or a political worldview that makes the actions of al-qaeda on 9/11 a legitimate political tool. It's a totally unfair comparison and you know it.

I think it's completely legitimate. I'd like to hear your thoughts on why it's not.

Doesn't really matter to me if they're primarily targeted or not.

Another idiotic statement; do you realize how dumb this comparison makes you sound?

I think it's completely legitimate. I'd like to hear your thoughts on why it's not.

Mass murder of innocent civilians, including children is legitimate? I am going to assume that you are playing devil's advocate here. Or else you've clearly been reading way too much by that MIT loon.

I'm sorry, but you can't honestly come up with a metaphysics or a morality or a political worldview that makes the actions of al-qaeda on 9/11 a legitimate political tool. It's a totally unfair comparison and you know it.
I never called it a legitimate political tool, I condemn their actions as much as our actions in the Iraq war. Just because someone is anti-Bush doesn't make them pro-terrorists. I am anti-both.

You imply though that wars of aggression started on, at best, nebulous terms are a legitimate political tool, and I wonder why you think that is.

I never called it a legitimate political tool, I condemn their actions as much as our actions in the Iraq war. Just because someone is anti-Bush doesn't make them pro-terrorists. I am anti-both.

You imply though that wars of aggression started on, at best, nebulous terms are a legitimate political tool, and I wonder why you think that is.

My point is that while there is reasoned debate about whether or not invading Iraq was a good idea, the actions of al-qaeda on 9/11 are universally condemned by everybody, and has only brought pain and suffering on it's perpetrators. Equating the two is crazier than 9 Paris Hiltons, and probably intellectually dishonest, in that it twists things around to prove a point (Bush is bad).

I see these bumper stickers in town that say stuff like "Bush is worse than the Taliban", and I wonder how anybody can take you seriously if you say stuff like that. :confused:

Another idiotic statement; do you realize how dumb this comparison makes you sound?
I don't think you are thinking it through enough. Consider two actions, one results in the death of 3,000 civilians and the other results in the deaths of 100,000 civilians. On that alone, the later would be morally worse. Now, assume that in the latter that those deaths were just collateral damage that was known to happen based on the eliminatio of other targets. Does that tip the moral scale the other way? I would say no.

I don't think you are thinking it through enough. Consider two actions, one results in the death of 3,000 civilians and the other results in the deaths of 100,000 civilians. On that alone, the later would be morally worse. Now, assume that in the latter that those deaths were just collateral damage that was known to happen based on the eliminatio of other targets. Does that tip the moral scale the other way? I would say no.

Well I have no idea what you're talking about now, because that's a very vague hypothetical.

First of all, there *is* a moral difference between what happens in war and what al-qaeda did on 9/11. Quakers and John Lennon may disagree, but pretty much everybody else would concede that point.

This is true. However, do you think the soldiers' morale will remain high? That's what I'm getting at.
Given they enlisted (many as a result of 9/11), I don't see why not. Again, the US has had over 200,000 total troops in Iraq since the start of military actions. Since then, less than 1% have died. Is it unsettling to be over there? I'm sure it is. But there are not mass killings, disorganization and the US trying to regain a big part of the country under opposing rule. For the most part, the US has established order in Iraq and has strategic placement on their assets and most of the fights are on their terms.

In Vietnam and WWII, US soldiers were constantly trying to capture assets and land - often fighting on the enemy's home turf. Imagine two scenerios:

1. An 18-year old kid in the middle of the woods in Vietnam seeing buddies shot or wounded every day while trying to beat a massive enemy hiding in the weeds and retake their land.

2. An 18-year old kid sitting in broad daylight patrolling an area that is owned and captured by the US looking out for a few scattered terrorists that come to them maybe once ever 5-6 days.

Tell me again how the morale for both soldiers is similar.

First of all, there *is* a moral difference between what happens in war and what al-qaeda did on 9/11. Quakers and John Lennon may disagree, but pretty much everybody else would concede that point.

What's the difference?

Given they enlisted (many as a result of 9/11), I don't see why not. Again, the US has had over 200,000 total troops in Iraq since the start of military actions. Since then, less than 1% have died. Is it unsettling to be over there? I'm sure it is. But there are not mass killings, disorganization and the US trying to regain a big part of the country under opposing rule. For the most part, the US has established order in Iraq and has strategic placement on their assets and most of the fights are on their terms.

In Vietnam and WWII, US soldiers were constantly trying to capture assets and land - often fighting on the enemy's home turf. Imagine two scenerios:

1. An 18-year old kid in the middle of the woods in Vietnam seeing buddies shot or wounded every day while trying to beat a massive enemy hiding in the weeds and retake their land.

2. An 18-year old kid sitting in broad daylight patrolling an area that is owned and captured by the US looking out for a few scattered terrorists that come to them maybe once ever 5-6 days.

Tell me again how the morale for both soldiers is similar.


Also keep in mind that soldiers are paid/treated much better than during the Vietnam era. Being a soldier in Vietnam was incredibly awful in certain circumstances; it's not even close to the same thing now.

The terrorists intent was to further a political goal. America's intent was to further a political goal. Both goals required the deaths of thousands of people in order to be fulfilled.

The last sentence is over the top, but you are quite correct in that both war and terrorism are tools used in service of achieving political ends. Nothing more, nothing less.

One can take issue with the legitimacy of either war or terrorism, but that does not preclude their use as policy tools by governments and/or political groups with the means and need to use them.

Given they enlisted (many as a result of 9/11), I don't see why not.

Wow. Since they enlisted after 9/11, you think they're comfortable with being sent to Iraq? That's a stretch.

Again, the US has had over 200,000 total troops in Iraq since the start of military actions. Since then, less than 1% have died. Is it unsettling to be over there? I'm sure it is. But there are not mass killings, disorganization and the US trying to regain a big part of the country under opposing rule. For the most part, the US has established order in Iraq and has strategic placement on their assets and most of the fights are on their terms.

Yes, things seem to be going great, huh?

Tell me again how the morale for both soldiers is similar.

I guess we'll see over the next few years, huh? I happen to think that 400 killed (whether they were soldiers or not) in the last 2 weeks is a pretty big deal and pretty chilling at this stage of the game.

I know a guy who got back from where a little while back who describe things like that at all (the sitting around thing).

Wow. Since they enlisted after 9/11, you think they're comfortable with being sent to Iraq? That's a stretch.
You think people enlisted after 9-11 thinking they were not going to enter some form of battle/warfare?

Yes, things seem to be going great, huh?
They seem to be going as expected by most rational people with an understanding of the history of warfare. No country of Iraq's size has ever been involved in a military-led regime change and had a new, working government in fewer than 5 years. Some of the expectations for this Iraq effort draw parallels to the "Mythical Man Month". If it takes 9 months to have a baby, you can't get together 9 pregnant women and have a baby in one month. There are certain things that need to happen and be legitimized/bought into by the population before we can advance to the next stage. This takes patience and is not something that we can speed up by throwing in more troops or changing overall tactics. Over the next few years, things will change and Iraq will eventually take over control of its own destiny without the need for the large US presence. But, in the interim, no amount of huffing and puffing (or gather more pregnant women) will change the time this takes.

I guess we'll see over the next few years, huh? I happen to think that 400 killed (whether they were soldiers or not) is a pretty big deal and pretty chilling at this stage of the game.
I have a feeling you happen to think any action that shows any sort of instability in Iraq is a huge deal, while disregarding all prior historical context in the process. You will continue to be "chilled" and "defeatest" all the way to end of our time there. And, that's your right, but that doesn't mean the rest of us have to follow suit when historical precedence shows that we are doing as well as can be expected given the difficult task at hand.

What's the difference?

What al-qaeda did on 9/11 was done without warning or diplomacy. It was committed against non-tactical, non-strategic, non-military targets. The purpose was to kill non-combatants, and lots of them.

There have been times in history when war has been waged like that, but there is no way that our invasion of Iraq (which was waged with diplomacy and with careful pains taken to reduce non-combatant casualty rates) matches up morally with the taking out of the twin towers. It's ludicrous to suggest it.

You think people enlisted after 9-11 thinking they were not going to enter some form of battle/warfare?

There was a high probability that there would be some fighting. Does that mean that any fighting is "ok" and that they'll be excited for all fighting?


I have a feeling you happen to think any action that shows any sort of instability in Iraq is a huge deal, while disregarding all prior historical context in the process. You will continue to be "chilled" and "defeatest" all the way to end of our time there. And, that's your right, but that doesn't mean the rest of us have to follow suit when historical precedence shows that we are doing as well as can be expected given the difficult task at hand.

You're probably right. I have a feeling that no matter when we leave there are going to be serious problems there.

What al-qaeda did on 9/11 was done without warning or diplomacy. It was committed against non-tactical, non-strategic, non-military targets. The purpose was to kill non-combatants, and lots of them.

I would say we were warned. WTC in 93? There were also grumblings about plane hijackings for a while before 9/11.

Diplomacy? You're right. There was none. I would guess that AQ views this as a "guerilla war" and they need to strike whenever and wherever they can. Not to mention, if ObL tried to get diplomatic with GWB, how do you think that would go pre and post 9/11? Pre 9/11, he's probably given some lip-service. After, he's killed. I don't think that was ever a legitimate option, ya know?

What al-qaeda did on 9/11 was done without warning or diplomacy. It was committed against non-tactical, non-strategic, non-military targets. The purpose was to kill non-combatants, and lots of them.

There have been times in history when war has been waged like that, but there is no way that our invasion of Iraq (which was waged with diplomacy and with careful pains taken to reduce non-combatant casualty rates) matches up morally with the taking out of the twin towers. It's ludicrous to suggest it.
What's the difference between killing a man on the street and killing a man on the street with a gun defending his family? Why is the former unconscionable and the latter ho-hum? Inflicting casualties in aggressive wars and in defensive wars are completely different.

What's the difference between killing a man on the street and killing a man on the street with a gun defending his family? Why is the former unconscionable and the latter ho-hum? Inflicting casualties in aggressive wars and in defensive wars are completely different.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Are you suggesting that al-qaeda is/was waging a *defensive* war?

All this talk is obscuring my main point, which is: Anybody who equates blowing up the twin towers with the invasion of Iraq on a moral scale is out of his mind. And anybody who drives around with a bumper sticker suggesting that Bush is worse than the Taliban has read way too much Chomsky.

All this talk is obscuring my main point, which is: Anybody who equates blowing up the twin towers with the invasion of Iraq on a moral scale is out of his mind.

I think we're talking about two things here--you are making a distinction between terrorism and war based on morality. That is certainly a valid assumption to make. But, I am not talking about morality at all--I am just echoing a statement made by Mr. Bigglesworth: both terrorism and warfare are tools to further political goals. I don't see anything controversial about that statement in and of itself. Yes, you can debate the morality of either, but as I said, that's not going to prevent either war or terrorism from being used by someone who wants or needs to use it.

You know I'm beginning to think I'm wrong about Rexall's level of education. I'm almost willing to bet now that he is tenured at the University of Colorado.

You know I'm beginning to think I'm wrong about Rexall's level of education. I'm almost willing to bet now that he is tenured at the University of Colorado.
Four legs good, two legs baaaad.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Are you suggesting that al-qaeda is/was waging a *defensive* war?
No, I am saying that offensive wars can be just as morally questionable as terrorism. That is why the Bush administration tried to paint Iraq as a defensive war. The difference between an offensive war and terrorism is that the former is more deadly and more likely to succeed.

You know I'm beginning to think I'm wrong about Rexall's level of education. I'm almost willing to bet now that he is tenured at the University of Colorado.

;)

Honestly, feel free to lay out your opinion, sans personal attacks. I don't pretend to have all of the answers, and I'm always open to other points of view, even if I disagree.

I think we're talking about two things here--you are making a distinction between terrorism and war based on morality. That is certainly a valid assumption to make. But, I am not talking about morality at all--I am just echoing a statement made by Mr. Bigglesworth: both terrorism and warfare are tools to further political goals. I don't see anything controversial about that statement in and of itself. Yes, you can debate the morality of either, but as I said, that's not going to prevent either war or terrorism from being used by someone who wants or needs to use it.

Ok, I can't disagree with that.

I would like to know the numbers on how many attacks were foiled the past 4 years due to brave men and women who work behind the shadows.

I will change the direction here for a sec and go back to those who think US citizens are no safer over the past 3+ years than they were in the late 90s, early 00s. The following are the choices as to why Al Qaeda hasn't successfully attacked the US in that timeframe (given they have publically stated their intentions to do so):

1. Despite their public stance, the war on Afghanistan/Iraq has sapped their financial strength and forced them to concentrate 100% on those two areas in hopes they do not lose ground in two of their dwindling options for safe harbor. They simply do not have the money and/or manpower to launch another attack on US land.

2. They have the ability to attack the US, but given the response in Afghanistan and Iraq, Al Qaeda does not want to rally the US base and give Bush the political capital to do even more to cripple the world terrorism base they are trying to rebuild. So, in essence, they are afraid of waking the sleeping giant again and do not want to allow Bush to unite the country.

3. Al Qaeda has tried a few times to attack the US but been thwarted by the Bush administration and unsuccessful at achieveing any of their US domestic terror goals.

Regardless of which you think to be true, doesn't the fact the US has not faced any domestic terror over the past three years (combined with the known state of Al Qaeda leadership/finances) show that Bush's policies have indeed made the US safer from terror?

I would like to know the numbers on how many attacks were foiled the past 4 years due to brave men and women who work behind the shadows.

Not to mention the very bright men and women working behind desks in analytic roles supporting our intelligence apparatus. They get little respect from anybody...

Arles: You leave out an option.

4. Al Queada is currently planning another mass-casulity attack that will happen within the next five years.

There was a significant gap between the Trade Center bombing and 9/11. It is quite possible that another attack is either being planned or currently in the execution phase. We simply don't know.

What we do know is that it is ridiculous to claim that any of our actions have made it impossible for Al Queada to strike us here in the U.S. That isn't an indictment of any particular policy, its just fact. The 9/11 attacks had to cost well under a million dollars and it only took nineteen people here in the U.S. A dirty bomb or God forbid nuclear attack could be carried out by a half a dozen people and maybe a hundred-thousand dollars.

Its crazy to think that anything we have done in Afghanistan or Iraq has degraded the worldwide terrorist threat to a level where an attack is impossible. It makes for a nice political message, but we won't be able to judge the real threat of global terror for decades. That's one of the reasons the fight is so damn difficult.

Regardless of which you think to be true, doesn't the fact the US has not faced any domestic terror over the past three years (combined with the known state of Al Qaeda leadership/finances) show that Bush's policies have indeed made the US safer from terror?
How many domestic terror attacks were there in the US prior to 2001? I think the invasion of Afghanistan helped to make us safer, but I don't see how you can make the argument that invading Iraq did.

How many domestic terror attacks were there in the US prior to 2001? I think the invasion of Afghanistan helped to make us safer, but I don't see how you can make the argument that invading Iraq did.

To be fair, Iraq had a whole lot of other issues besides state-sponsored terrorism that forced that issue.

Arles: You leave out an option.

4. Al Queada is currently planning another mass-casulity attack that will happen within the next five years.

There was a significant gap between the Trade Center bombing and 9/11. It is quite possible that another attack is either being planned or currently in the execution phase. We simply don't know.
But there wasn't that big a gap between the USS Cole incident and 9/11. And even if they are in another 5-year planning stage, there's a good chance that their leadership/funding will take yet another major hit before the plan is completed or that the situation in Iraq may force yet another change in priorities for the terrorists.

What we do know is that it is ridiculous to claim that any of our actions have made it impossible for Al Queada to strike us here in the U.S.
Where did I say it was "impossible for Al Qaeda to strike us"? I was simply stating the current facts of the situation and the fact that Al Qaeda has been unable to successfully complete any kind of terrorist act outside of Iraq over the past three years. That's certainly something many doubters would not have predicted right after 9/11.

That isn't an indictment of any particular policy, its just fact. The 9/11 attacks had to cost well under a million dollars and it only took nineteen people here in the U.S. A dirty bomb or God forbid nuclear attack could be carried out by a half a dozen people and maybe a hundred-thousand dollars.
If it's so cheap/inexpensive, why hasn't it been done? Striking the US at home would be a great way for Al Qaeda to show they are not going away - yet they haven't been successful in nearly 4 years.

Its crazy to think that anything we have done in Afghanistan or Iraq has degraded the worldwide terrorist threat to a level where an attack is impossible.
You are making some strawmen here to help strengthen a fairly weak argument. No one is saying it's impossible, but I think it's also crazy to act as if the US efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq have not significantly lowered the chance that the US gets hit again. When you look at the leadership and financial state of Al Qaeda, the loss of willingness by many nations to harbor them (primarily Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Syria) and the reality that the US has not even had a near miss attack in the states shows that Al Qaeda is becoming a shell of the terroristic force it was back in 99-01.

It makes for a nice political message, but we won't be able to judge the real threat of global terror for decades. That's one of the reasons the fight is so damn difficult.
I agree to a point. But when you put the facts of the state of Al Qaeda and its options for safe harbor with the lack of any legit attack on the US in almost 4 years, it's also hard to ignore the progress being made against that group.

How many domestic terror attacks were there in the US prior to 2001? I think the invasion of Afghanistan helped to make us safer, but I don't see how you can make the argument that invading Iraq did.
What do you think the thousands and thousands of foreign terrorists that have been killed or captured in Iraq (or are heading there now) would be up to if the US had not taken the actions it did in Iraq?

I think it's a safe bet to assume they wouldn't be peacefully plowing fields.

What do you think the thousands and thousands of foreign terrorists that have been killed or captured in Iraq (or are heading there now) would be up to if the US had not taken the actions it did in Iraq?

I think it's a safe bet to assume they wouldn't be peacefully plowing fields.
Where would the hundreds of thousands of foreign soldiers in Iraq be if they weren't in Iraq? I don't think that you can assume that all of them would be invading another country. So I don't think you can assume that every, or even a majority, would be engaged in terrorism somewhere else. For many of them, the invasion of Iraq itself is the reason to engage in terrorism/insurgency/freedom fighting.

1. An 18-year old kid in the middle of the woods in Vietnam seeing buddies shot or wounded every day while trying to beat a massive enemy hiding in the weeds and retake their land.

2. An 18-year old kid sitting in broad daylight patrolling an area that is owned and captured by the US looking out for a few scattered terrorists that come to them maybe once ever 5-6 days.

Unmitigated Bullshit. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/11/AR2005051101737_pf.html)

By Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, May 12, 2005; A01



HABAN, Iraq, May 11 -- The explosion enveloped the armored vehicle in flames, sending orange balls of fire bubbling above the trees along the Euphrates River near the Syrian border.

Marines in surrounding vehicles threw open their hatches and took off running across the plowed fields, toward the already blackening metal of the destroyed vehicle. Shouting, they pulled to safety those they could, as the flames ignited the bullets, mortar rounds, flares and grenades inside, rocketing them into the sky and across pastures.

Gunnery Sgt. Chuck Hurley emerged from the smoke and turmoil around the vehicle, circling toward the spot where helicopters would later land to pick up casualties. As he passed one group of Marines, he uttered one sentence: "That was the same squad."

Among the four Marines killed and 10 wounded when an explosive device erupted under their Amtrac on Wednesday were the last battle-ready members of a squad that four days earlier had battled foreign fighters holed up in a house in the town of Ubaydi. In that fight, two squad members were killed and five were wounded.

In 96 hours of fighting and ambushes in far western Iraq, the squad had ceased to be.

Every member of the squad -- one of three that make up the 1st Platoon of Lima Company, 3rd Battalion, 25th Regiment -- had been killed or wounded, Marines here said. All told, the 1st Platoon -- which Hurley commands -- had sustained 60 percent casualties, demolishing it as a fighting force.

"They used to call it Lucky Lima," said Maj. Steve Lawson, commander of the company. "That turned around and bit us."

Wednesday was the fourth day of fighting in far western Iraq, as the U.S. military continued an assault that has sent more than 1,000 Marines down the ungoverned north bank of the Euphrates River in search of foreign fighters crossing the border from Syria. Of seven Marines killed so far in the operation, six came come from Lima Company's 1st Platoon.

Lima Company drew Marine reservists from across Ohio into the conflict in Iraq. Some were still too young to be bothered much by shaving, or even stubble.

They rode to war on a Marine Amtrac, an armored vehicle that travels on tank-like treads. Marines in Iraq typically crowd thigh to thigh in the Amtrac, with one or two men perched on cardboard boxes of rations. Only the gunners manning the top hatches of Amtracs have any view of the passing scenery. Those inside find out what their field of combat is when the rear ramp comes down and they run out with weapons ready.

Marines typically pass travel time in the Amtrac by extracting favorite bits from ration packets, mercilessly ribbing a usual victim for eating or sleeping too much, or sleeping themselves.

On Monday, when the Marine assault on foreign fighters formally began, the young Marines of the squad from the 1st Platoon were already exhausted. Their encounter at the house in Ubaydi that morning and the previous night had been the unintended first clash of the operation, pitting them against insurgents who fired armor-piercing bullets up through the floor. It took 12 hours and five assaults by the squad -- plus grenades, bombing by an F/A-18 attack plane, tank rounds and rockets at 20 yards -- to kill the insurgents and permit recovery of the dead Marines' bodies.

Afterward, they slept in the moving Amtrac, heads back and mouths agape. One stood up to stretch his legs. He fell asleep again standing up, leaning against the metal walls.

Squad members spoke only to compare what they knew about the condition of their wounded. Getting the latest news, they fell silent again. After one such half-hour of silence, a Marine offered a terse commendation for one of the squad members shot at Ubaydi: "Bunker's a good man."

With the operation underway, Marine commanders kept the 1st Platoon largely to the back, letting its men rest.

Commanders had hoped the operation would swiftly capture or kill large numbers of foreign fighters. But the foreigners, and everyone else here, had plenty of warning that the Marines were coming -- including those ready to fight at Ubaydi.

By the time the squad from Lima Company crossed north of the Euphrates, whole villages consisted of little more than abandoned houses with fresh tire tracks leading into pastures or homes occupied only by prepubescent boys or old men. Men of fighting age had made themselves scarce. The AK-47 assault rifles ubiquitous in Iraqi households had disappeared.

Many Marines complained bitterly that commanders had pulled them out of the fight at Ubaydi while the insurgents were still battling, to start the planned offensive. "They take us from killing the people they want us to kill and bring us to these ghost villages," one complained Wednesday on the porch of a house commandeered as a temporary base.

Uneventful house searches stretched into late afternoon, the tedium broken only by small-arms fire and mortar rounds lobbed by insurgents hiding on the far side of the river.

This correspondent had just gotten off the Amtrac and the reconstructed squad from 1st Platoon was rolling toward the Euphrates in a row of armored vehicles, headed for more house searches, when the vehicle rolled over the explosive.

Marines initially said they believed the blast was caused by two mines stacked on top of each other. But reports from Marines that they had seen an artillery round and two hand-held radios near the blast site raised suspicions that the explosion was caused by a bomb that had been activated remotely, Lawson said.

Hurley and others pulled their comrades out of the Amtrac as flames detonated -- or "cooked off," in military jargon -- its ammunition. As Marines carrying stretchers ran to the Amtrac, bullets snapped out of the burning hulk and traveled hundreds of feet. The Marines ran back through the fusillade, carrying out the wounded. "C'mon, c'mon, c'mon," some shouted, desperate to get the wounded out.

The four dead were trapped inside the vehicle, Lawson said.

"We passed right over it. We passed right over it," one of many Marines in the convoy ahead of the burning Amtrac said of the explosive, puzzling over why he was still alive.

"That's the last of the squad," said another, Cpl. Craig Miller, whose reassignment last month had taken him out of the unit. "Three weeks ago, that would have been me."

Late Wednesday, helicopters flew out Hurley and the remaining members of 1st Platoon for time off. They are to return after the platoon is remade, Marines said.

Another Lima Company platoon commander ordered his men to bed early, in preparation for the next day's operations. Mourning could wait.

"We don't have time," the commander said.

Arles: You said,

They simply do not have the money and/or manpower to launch another attack on US land.

That's ridiculous. If they have six people and enough money to get to Mexico they have a good chance of pulling off some sort of attack.

You said,

But there wasn't that big a gap between the USS Cole incident and 9/11.

Well if you want to count attacks off of US soil on military targets I think Afghanistan and Iraq have had a few terrorist attacks in the past three years.

fact that Al Qaeda has been unable to successfully complete any kind of terrorist act outside of Iraq over the past three years.

Wha? Spain, Morocco, Bali, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, The Philippines, Russia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt and perhaps other countries would beg to differ.

You said,

thousands and thousands of foreign terrorists that have been killed or captured in Iraq

This is very much in doubt. Even most government sources say the overwhelming number of insurgents in Iraq are native. There has been evidence of some foriegn fighters, but you imply that they are the backbone of the insurgency and that does not seem to be true.

Now to your central question of "Are we safer from terror?" Certainly I think we are. 9/11 shocked us into dealing with a threat that had been growing since at least the eighties. Afghanistan has been central to weakening Al Queada, but I don't know if Iraq has been very beneficial to America in terms of making us safer. It still could be, but as of right now I don't see how what we have done has made me safer. It could, and I think there were other reasons to get involved besides a direct relationship to Al Queada and/or terror, but right now we are in a desperate holding action to keep the country from falling apart.

And before you attack me for being a crazy peace-monger, remember that I have stated numerous times that I could have supported an invasion of Iraq, but after Afghanistan I was convinced that the admin wasn't serious about what it would take to finish the job after the major fighting stopped.

And before you attack me for being a crazy peace-monger, remember that I have stated numerous times that I could have supported an invasion of Iraq, but after Afghanistan I was convinced that the admin wasn't serious about what it would take to finish the job after the major fighting stopped.

How have major decentralized terrorist-insurgency's been dealt with in the past? Then we can figure out if we are on the right track or not. The reality is that this is a pretty unique situation. And to be fair, it looks like the admin isn't buckling under media and leftist scrutiny and pulling out of Iraq, they are staying and helping as promised.

And to be fair, it looks like the admin isn't buckling under media and leftist scrutiny and pulling out of Iraq, they are staying and helping as promised.
The problem with Iraq that most people have is not that we are there now, but that we went in to begin with and didn't have an exit strategy at all. Most people (Kerry too, you'll remember) figure that we have to stay there until it stabilizes. To say everyone against Iraq just wants us to pull out right away is a straw man.

i don't care if Arles is right or wrong, his view makes me feel safer. makes me feel that the last several years maybe *haven't* been such a waste.

i don't care if Arles is right or wrong, his view makes me feel safer. makes me feel that the last several years maybe *haven't* been such a waste.
:cool:

The problem with Iraq that most people have is not that we are there now, but that we went in to begin with and didn't have an exit strategy at all. Most people (Kerry too, you'll remember) figure that we have to stay there until it stabilizes. To say everyone against Iraq just wants us to pull out right away is a straw man.

From where I sit, if Bush had left Iraq as status quo (violating the resolutions and cease fire agreement of '91) activists would be saying Bush is killing babies by supporting the UN Resolutions.

So this is a simple (yet very dangerous) partisan politics dispute. Not just by Democrats and Republicans but by Americans and Europeans. It's a power grab and both the Democrats and the Europeans lost, because the USA had every right to remove Saddam Hussein from power and they chose to fight that. Not because of the exit strategy, but for political gain.

The reality is that a majority voting block insisted that their chosen administration take care of Iraq, and that same voting block (plus) supported this admin's re-election and that's how it works.

As for the "better" way to do this, I've asked over and over and over again for the "better" way and there isn't. Nobody can do that, no reporter has done it, no Democrat has done it, not France, not Germany, not Russia. Nobody.

Dutch: How about some fucking accountability? All of the people that made terrible predictions about how post-war Iraq would be are either still in office or have been promoted. This admin holds no one accountable for anything except disloyalty. All of the people that warned the admin that we didn't have enough occupation troops, that we didn't have enough plans for post-war reconstruction, that we didn't realize how difficult establishing a government in Iraq would be were all silenced or moved out of office.

But let's look at today. For the past week we have been in major combat trying to seal the border to Syria. This same biorder has been a problem acknowledged by the administration and military for at least two years. Why the fuck are we just now trying to close the border? Its great that we are finally trying to solve the problem, but shouldn't the people who delayed this be fired?

Our post-war strategy has been disastrous. We had no plan and our officials spent more time trying to turn Iraq into a Freidmanesque paradise than they did trying to secure the country. Look at some of Bremer's biggest accomplishments. He said one of the things he was most proud of was that Iraq had a lower export tax! A lower fucking export tax? The only things he should have been worried about were the transitional government and security. Let the Iraqi's decide if they want to be the liassez faire wanderland or not. Bremer also mentioned a law that regulated what side of the road cars drove on. And Bush gave this guy a medal.

I sincerely hope that we succeed in Iraq. It is important and could change the climate in the Middle East. But this idea that nothing could have been changed or done better is complete bullshit. We know full well that the admin thought it would be easy and the transition would go smoothly when they handed Iraq over to Chalabi. Well unfortunately he's an Iranian spy. But are we doing anything about that? No, we're making one of Chalabi's biggest supporters our U.N. Ambassador.

And if I were you I'd watch citing polls as proof of your position. The latest polls say that a large majority of Americans don't believe the war was worth the costs.

Dutch: How about some fucking accountability? All of the people that made terrible predictions about how post-war Iraq would be are either still in office or have been promoted. This admin holds no one accountable for anything except disloyalty. All of the people that warned the admin that we didn't have enough occupation troops, that we didn't have enough plans for post-war reconstruction, that we didn't realize how difficult establishing a government in Iraq would be were all silenced or moved out of office.

Everybody said this wasn't going to be easy and would take a long time.

But let's look at today. For the past week we have been in major combat trying to seal the border to Syria. This same biorder has been a problem acknowledged by the administration and military for at least two years. Why the fuck are we just now trying to close the border? Its great that we are finally trying to solve the problem, but shouldn't the people who delayed this be fired?

We can't just go blowing up everything because we don't know which one's are the bad guys. The terror-insurgency definately has the upper hand in the blowing things up department. We knew the terrorists were being supplied from across borders, but didn't know exactly where. The capture of this Al Qaeda #3 guy gave way to a lot of information that led the US to this particular location for Operation Matador.

Our post-war strategy has been disastrous. We had no plan and our officials spent more time trying to turn Iraq into a Freidmanesque paradise than they did trying to secure the country. Look at some of Bremer's biggest accomplishments. He said one of the things he was most proud of was that Iraq had a lower export tax! A lower fucking export tax? The only things he should have been worried about were the transitional government and security. Let the Iraqi's decide if they want to be the liassez faire wanderland or not. Bremer also mentioned a law that regulated what side of the road cars drove on. And Bush gave this guy a medal.

I have been completely misinformed on what Bremer was working on all that time.

I sincerely hope that we succeed in Iraq. It is important and could change the climate in the Middle East. But this idea that nothing could have been changed or done better is complete bullshit. We know full well that the admin thought it would be easy and the transition would go smoothly when they handed Iraq over to Chalabi. Well unfortunately he's an Iranian spy. But are we doing anything about that? No, we're making one of Chalabi's biggest supporters our U.N. Ambassador.

Chalabi was a big-time error and we are continuing to pay the price for that. If we wanted real intelligence on the Baath Party and the Republican Guard, we should have hired some Baath Party members and Republican Guard members to get us information, but we are no longer allowed to work with the enemy at any level. At least before the intel reform that is being worked on now. The biggest fault we had with Iraq was not finding the whereabouts of the WMD's that were inventoried by the UN. I thought for sure that was information that was at hand. I was wrong.

But I will contend that the Admin has never stated this would be easy.

And if I were you I'd watch citing polls as proof of your position. The latest polls say that a large majority of Americans don't believe the war was worth the costs.

I agree at this moment in time it is not the numbers I would like to see.

Dutch: No, everyone didn't say it would take a long time. Remember Shinseki? Wolfowitz said he was wildly off the mark on an estimate of 200,000 troops for post-war Iraq. It was either Wolfowitz or Pearl who said that the whole Iraq operation wouldn't cost U.S. tax payers even 100 billion dollars.

but let's look at what was said.

Richard Pearl: "But it's a house of cards. He rules by fear because he knows there is no
underlying support. Support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse at the first whiff of gunpowder. "

Former U.N. ambassodr and Rumsfeld confidant Ken Adelman: "I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. Let me give simple, responsible reasons: (1) It was a cakewalk last time; (2) they've become much weaker; (3) we've become much stronger;
and (4) now we're playing for keeps.

Dick Cheney: "The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but that they want to get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the
United States when we come to do that."

Wolfowitz: "It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would to take to conduct the war itself and secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army. Hard to imagine."

Now I don't think there was some evil plan hatched to lie to the American public, but I also think the record is clear that the problems in post-war Iraq have largely caught the admin off-guard. They honestly believed everything would work out because that's what Chalabi kept telling them. They wanted to believe that Iraq could become an Isreal-friendly Arab country with little expense in either treasure or lives. It hasn't worked that way and someone should be held responsible for this massive mistake.

Good post, JPhillips. It's...dismaying...that the rhetoric constantly changes, and yet there seems to be such a short memory span for what was previously said.

Bringing stability and unity to a free Iraq will not be easy. Yet that is no excuse to leave the Iraqi regime's torture chambers and poison labs in operation. Any future the Iraqi people choose for themselves will be better than the nightmare world that Saddam Hussein has chosen for them. - President Bush, Feb 2003
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030226-11.html

Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including our own: we will remain in Iraq as long as necessary, and not a day more. America has made and kept this kind of commitment before -- in the peace that followed a world war. After defeating enemies, we did not leave behind occupying armies, we left constitutions and parliaments. - President Bush, Feb 2003
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030226-11.html

Much is asked of America in this year 2003. The work ahead is demanding. It will be difficult to help freedom take hold in a country that has known three decades of dictatorship, secret police, internal divisions, and war. It will be difficult to cultivate liberty and peace in the Middle East, after so many generations of strife. Yet, the security of our nation and the hope of millions depend on us, and Americans do not turn away from duties because they are hard. We have met great tests in other times, and we will meet the tests of our time. - President Bush, Feb 2003
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030226-11.html

We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We've begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We're helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people. (Applause.)

The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq. (Applause.)

The war on terror is not over; yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide. No act of the terrorists will change our purpose, or weaken our resolve, or alter their fate. Their cause is lost. Free nations will press on to victory. (Applause.) - President Bush aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln (of infamous "Mission Accomplished" notoriety)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/iraq/20030501-15.html

So this is a simple (yet very dangerous) partisan politics dispute.
Well if you still see the disagreement as simple partisan politics, I feel that any further discussion is futile.

As for the "better" way to do this, I've asked over and over and over again for the "better" way and there isn't. Nobody can do that, no reporter has done it, no Democrat has done it, not France, not Germany, not Russia. Nobody.
I mean really, and, c'mon, not one person has come up with a better way to do anything? That is, I'm sure, the meme being pushed by such places as Rush and Power Line, but it has no place in reality. People from the beginning have said: we need more troops in theatre for the occupation, Saddam might not have any WMD's, the Iraqi military shouldn't have been dismantled, open contract bidding to non-coalition companies, etc. Just as the White House message is that nobody else has any ideas for social security, their message is that nobody has any other ideas about Iraq. They just don't listen to any ideas.

The events on the ground have proven Eric Shinseki right--his estimate for the size of an effective occupying force, while a bit more conservative, ended up being closer to real life than the estimate given by the civilians in the DoD. I don't think arguing the numbers is really of much significance at this point, but I do find it unfortunate that Shinseki's career and good reputation (via smear campaign) came to an end over this...

I mean really, and, c'mon, not one person has come up with a better way to do anything? That is, I'm sure, the meme being pushed by such places as Rush and Power Line, but it has no place in reality. People from the beginning have said: we need more troops in theatre for the occupation, Saddam might not have any WMD's, the Iraqi military shouldn't have been dismantled, open contract bidding to non-coalition companies, etc. Just as the White House message is that nobody else has any ideas for social security, their message is that nobody has any other ideas about Iraq. They just don't listen to any ideas.

I've previously given a scenario where I pull 250,000 brand new fresh US troops out of my "magic bag". They are free, it won't cost a dime, we don't have to feed them or train them. Where do you put them? The bottom line is there is no answer because we are not fighting an insurgency. We are fighting an underground terror-insurgency. A classic conventional addition of troops doesn't work here and in many times in classic conventional warfare, having too many troops in one spot could lead to all kinds of communication blunders and more friendly fire incidents.

The question about WMD remains the same. Nobody knows what Saddam Hussein did with them, but at last count by the UN, they had a ton of crap there. Iraq never accounted for it to the UN and claimed we blew it all up in Operation Desert Fox just after the inspectors were kicked out. What steps did President Clinton take to resolve the situation? He strengthened the argument by calling for regime change in Iraq.

The Iraqi military dissapeared. Most of it's leaders went into hiding. Yes, we could have tried to stage a TV presence by putting a bunch of under-trained soldiers in uniform and paraded them around like they were pro-Democracy. But it would not have worked. It hardly worked the first 15 months after the war with new recruits. But a lot of those recruits are slowly turning into veterans and are of proper training and mind. The military in Iraq had to be rebuilt from scratch and I think it's long-term affects are far outweighing the short term gain of that argument. What do you do with 100,000 Iraqi's when they turn out to be worthless? You can't go back and retrain them...that could cause it's own revolt. As time goes on, not bringing the Iraqi military back is proving to be a smart decision.

Open contract bidding to non-coalition countries? You mean like France and Russia? Please don't ever be a politician for my country! These two particular nations had extremely lucrative oil and military contracts already set up and in place. The only stumbling block in their way was the tricky task of removing UN Sanctions.

That's the part a lot of people don't see, but the UN Sanctions were going to come under fire had we left the "status quo" in place under President Bush. The French and Russians and Germans wanted those sanctions gone, because afterall, the Iraqi threat wasn't to Europeans, it was to Jews and Americans. Two groups that European nationalism historically has shown absolutley no love towards.

Our plan isn't perfect, because nobody is throwing roses at our soldiers, but it's not nearly as bad as the media potrays it.

Good post, JPhillips. It's...dismaying...that the rhetoric constantly changes, and yet there seems to be such a short memory span for what was previously said.

Oops. :)

I've previously given a scenario where I pull 250,000 brand new fresh US troops out of my "magic bag". They are free, it won't cost a dime, we don't have to feed them or train them. Where do you put them? The bottom line is there is no answer because we are not fighting an insurgency. We are fighting an underground terror-insurgency. A classic conventional addition of troops doesn't work here and in many times in classic conventional warfare, having too many troops in one spot could lead to all kinds of communication blunders and more friendly fire incidents.
You are assuiming that the problem is not enough troops. That was definitely a huge problem during the invasion, what with not being able to guard the ammo dumps that the insurgency are now using to attack our troops. The problem right now I think is inept management. Infrastructure is terrible, billions of dollars are missing, Iraqis were/are being tortured.

The question about WMD remains the same. Nobody knows what Saddam Hussein did with them, but at last count by the UN, they had a ton of crap there. Iraq never accounted for it to the UN and claimed we blew it all up in Operation Desert Fox just after the inspectors were kicked out. What steps did President Clinton take to resolve the situation? He strengthened the argument by calling for regime change in Iraq.

The Iraqi military dissapeared. Most of it's leaders went into hiding. Yes, we could have tried to stage a TV presence by putting a bunch of under-trained soldiers in uniform and paraded them around like they were pro-Democracy. But it would not have worked. It hardly worked the first 15 months after the war with new recruits. But a lot of those recruits are slowly turning into veterans and are of proper training and mind. The military in Iraq had to be rebuilt from scratch and I think it's long-term affects are far outweighing the short term gain of that argument. What do you do with 100,000 Iraqi's when they turn out to be worthless? You can't go back and retrain them...that could cause it's own revolt. As time goes on, not bringing the Iraqi military back is proving to be a smart decision.

Open contract bidding to non-coalition countries? You mean like France and Russia? Please don't ever be a politician for my country! These two particular nations had extremely lucrative oil and military contracts already set up and in place. The only stumbling block in their way was the tricky task of removing UN Sanctions.
Reasonable people can disagree on the effectiveness of the other ideas (and I disagree with a lot of what you said), but to suggest that they don't exist and then to argue against them is completely irrational doublethink. The facts are that things are not going well over there, and that the people in charge are praised or promoted.

Dutch: I never saw your 250,000 troop mega-challenge, but let me take a shot. And for the record, I completely understand that adding 250,000 troops can't happen without a draft.

First I'll assume that like the current troops at least half are support troops. That leaves 125,00 combat soldiers. With half of those I put them on the Syrian border. Like I said earlier, we have known the Syrian border is a problem forr years and haven't done anything about it. This puts out border patrols. It won't stop everything, but it will make it a hell of a lot harder to sneak in people/material. And if it makes the Syrians nervous, so much the better.

The other half goes into occupation duty with our other soldiers. We simply don't have enough people on the ground to police the entire country. If only half of our force is combat and only a thrid to half are working at one time, that isn't enough to pacify the country. It will get better as more Iraqis take over, but more boots on the ground will help, at least with the Sunni insurgency.

But the 250,000 troops idea is silly, because we don't have them and aren't going to get them. Rumsfeld even refuses to agree that the standing army is too small given the commitments we have. So that leaves us with far less options.

1. Accountability. If people know their choices matter I believe you are more likely to get choices that work. We don't have to hang anyone who makes any mistake, but wrong assumptions and ineffective leadership should get you fired.

2. Simply admit that things aren't/haven't gone well. I value leadership that can solve problems and isn't bound by plans that have proven to not work. I would have much more respect for Bush if he said something along the lines of "The intelligence I recieved before Iraq was wrong and that is a disgrace. We can not base our national defence on false presumptions. I am going to do everything possible to make sure this never happens again."

3. Get out of internal Iraqi politics. We made a bunch of laws during the CPA era that we should have left to Iraqis. They should be given complete freedom to set most internal laws. The laws set by the CPA should be reviewed by the Iraqi government with our encouragement. We had too many Heritage Institute thinkers trying to make Iraq into the dream of Milton Friedman.

4. Aggressively punish corruption and misuse of funds. At least nine billion dollars is missing in Iraq and the admin has done nothing to ensure America that the money sent there will be well accounted.

5. Be honest about our future commitments. This "until needed and not one day longer" crap needs to go. I don't think anyone with any sense thinks we have less than two years ahead of us with major forces in Iraq. Given the slow pace of setting up the government, its safe to assume the constitutional process will take longer than anticipated. Be upfront with the American people about what our level of commitment is going to be. You don't have to set an exit date, but you should give some sense of the timeline that is being predicted.

6. Stop giving medals to fuckups. This would just make me happy.

7. Get more Iraqis doing the work of private contractors. We're paying a lot of money to Americans that are doing such things as driving trucks. As more Iraqis are tied economically to the new government it will get more stable. Gen. Zinni suggested an international summit on the economic future of Iraq. Lets do it.

As to mistakes in the past. There were many and you refuse to ackowledge them. There isn't any point in retreading that ground.

Dutch: I never saw your 250,000 troop mega-challenge, but let me take a shot. And for the record, I completely understand that adding 250,000 troops can't happen without a draft.

First I'll assume that like the current troops at least half are support troops. That leaves 125,00 combat soldiers. With half of those I put them on the Syrian border. Like I said earlier, we have known the Syrian border is a problem forr years and haven't done anything about it. This puts out border patrols. It won't stop everything, but it will make it a hell of a lot harder to sneak in people/material. And if it makes the Syrians nervous, so much the better.

The other half goes into occupation duty with our other soldiers. We simply don't have enough people on the ground to police the entire country. If only half of our force is combat and only a thrid to half are working at one time, that isn't enough to pacify the country. It will get better as more Iraqis take over, but more boots on the ground will help, at least with the Sunni insurgency.

But the 250,000 troops idea is silly, because we don't have them and aren't going to get them. Rumsfeld even refuses to agree that the standing army is too small given the commitments we have. So that leaves us with far less options.

Exactly my point. If Bush had these troops at his disposal and utilized them as such, it would have been media field day. The reality is that these troops would have come at the cost of our reserve units that are in place now and we would have lasted about one-year before we realized we had absolutely no reserve left to move guys in and out of theater like we currently have the luxury of doing. And the current situation has been a media field day with people going to Iraq for one year tours.

Point: The troop levels are not only doing the job, they are as large as realistically possible without having an actual opposing military to fight.

1. Accountability. If people know their choices matter I believe you are more likely to get choices that work. We don't have to hang anyone who makes any mistake, but wrong assumptions and ineffective leadership should get you fired.

I think that is fair. FWIW, Every intelligence director has effictively been demoted to the #2 guy with the Intel Reform Bill that passed in Dec 04. The General in charge of Abu Graib was reduced to Colonel and forced to retire. It's not like the people that are screwing up aren't being punished. But they are losing their old positions of leadership.

2. Simply admit that things aren't/haven't gone well. I value leadership that can solve problems and isn't bound by plans that have proven to not work. I would have much more respect for Bush if he said something along the lines of "The intelligence I recieved before Iraq was wrong and that is a disgrace. We can not base our national defence on false presumptions. I am going to do everything possible to make sure this never happens again."

Doesn't the intel reform bill mean exactly that? You have to understand that no President is ever going to say things in hopes it will please the media or the opposition. Because there is no mercy. You know that. If the President says, "I made a mistake..." here or here....then it is instant political suicide. So he acts to correct errors in Intelligence (for instance) by reforming the system.

3. Get out of internal Iraqi politics. We made a bunch of laws during the CPA era that we should have left to Iraqis. They should be given complete freedom to set most internal laws. The laws set by the CPA should be reviewed by the Iraqi government with our encouragement. We had too many Heritage Institute thinkers trying to make Iraq into the dream of Milton Friedman.

I'm not sure what laws you are referring to. If they are laws specifically designed to ensure dictator's don't take over the country and keep the power seperated among the different groups. I agree. We promised that Iraq would be free, but also that Iraq would not just be replaced with another Despotism. That's as far into the government that I have treaded anyway.

4. Aggressively punish corruption and misuse of funds. At least nine billion dollars is missing in Iraq and the admin has done nothing to ensure America that the money sent there will be well accounted.

I am not sure where that money is either. If it's been stolen, somebody needs to pay. If it's been wasted or abused, somebody needs to pay. It has to have a clear purpose and if there is abuse, whomever is responsible needs to be punished. I agree.

5. Be honest about our future commitments. This "until needed and not one day longer" crap needs to go. I don't think anyone with any sense thinks we have less than two years ahead of us with major forces in Iraq. Given the slow pace of setting up the government, its safe to assume the constitutional process will take longer than anticipated. Be upfront with the American people about what our level of commitment is going to be. You don't have to set an exit date, but you should give some sense of the timeline that is being predicted.

I disagree with the requirements of a timeline. I would love to think it would be beneficial to have one, but I think it would have a negative impact.

6. Stop giving medals to fuckups. This would just make me happy.

I'm not sure what that was in response to. Bremer? But I've seen people get medals for goofy shit. It was rumored that the general officer in charge of the Army forward task force (whom I supported directly in our bid to prepare to go into Iraq through No. Turkey) gave *himself* a bronze star. What's up with that?

7. Get more Iraqis doing the work of private contractors. We're paying a lot of money to Americans that are doing such things as driving trucks. As more Iraqis are tied economically to the new government it will get more stable. Gen. Zinni suggested an international summit on the economic future of Iraq. Lets do it.

I think the Iraqi's need to be given as many jobs as possible. As stated here on these boards, one of the biggest challenges for Iraq is creating jobs. After the oil industry, there aren't a whole lot of lucrative jobs to give these people. Jobs make people content more than anything else. So again, I agree 100%. The more they are working towards their own goals, the better off they will be. I believe we are progressing in that area, and I hope we only speed up the process if we don't lose traction in the quality of the work being done.

As to mistakes in the past. There were many and you refuse to ackowledge them. There isn't any point in retreading that ground.

I do acknowledge mistakes when I see them. But I am not so unrealistic as to think that a massive exploration into the unknown (providing democracy to a part of the world that has so far rejected democracy) could possibly be done perfectly. This is not perfect, but I think it's much better than the opposition makes it out to be.

I know we will continue to disagree on many things, but I will continue to provide positive support to our troops and leadership as long as I feel they are acting in my best interest. And I know you will continue to dog them when they are not acting in yours. That's America. But the bottom line is we live in a country that we get to grade our leaders every four years. It's a beautiful deal relatively speaking. You say we are failing, I say we are overcoming a challenging obstacle. We'll see whose right in the end. I hope it's me.

Honestly Dutch, I hope its you as well. I don't wish failure on the troops or the country, but I see an admin that is blinded by their assumptions and isn't willing to change course as circumstances change.

Anyway, I do think we found a lot of common ground. As I've said before, while I'm a proud Democrat, I really come from the FDR/Truman legacy. I'm fairly hawkish about using the military to better the world.

Do you want to compare WWI deaths to WWII deaths?

I do believe that you were the one who first mentioned it looking like Vietnam. All that bringing up these statistics do is show how minor, and bloodless, war this is.

That is not to say that the loss of life in Iraq is not tragic, but when compared to other conflicts we have paid very little for potentially great payoff.

Arles: You leave out an option.

4. Al Queada is currently planning another mass-casulity attack that will happen within the next five years.

There was a significant gap between the Trade Center bombing and 9/11. It is quite possible that another attack is either being planned or currently in the execution phase. We simply don't know.

What we do know is that it is ridiculous to claim that any of our actions have made it impossible for Al Queada to strike us here in the U.S. That isn't an indictment of any particular policy, its just fact. The 9/11 attacks had to cost well under a million dollars and it only took nineteen people here in the U.S. A dirty bomb or God forbid nuclear attack could be carried out by a half a dozen people and maybe a hundred-thousand dollars.

Its crazy to think that anything we have done in Afghanistan or Iraq has degraded the worldwide terrorist threat to a level where an attack is impossible. It makes for a nice political message, but we won't be able to judge the real threat of global terror for decades. That's one of the reasons the fight is so damn difficult.

While you might be right about option 4, Al Qaeda launched numerous attacks against the US between 1993 and 9/11, embassy bombings and the USS Cole attacks come immediately to mind.

It is impossible to completely irradicate terrorism, but we can seek to stifle the growth of the terrorist movement. One way to do this is to export democracy. How many pure wars of aggression have democratic governments embarked upon?

However, what we really need to do, is get mainstream Muslim Imams to denounce the terrorists. I have yet to see any major Muslim leaders repeatedly denounce the terrorist movement.

I do believe that you were the one who first mentioned it looking like Vietnam. All that bringing up these statistics do is show how minor, and bloodless, war this is.

Tell that to the dead soldiers' families and to the orphaned and maimed Iraqis.

Democracy is allowed to have a strong central government just like Saddam Hussein's dictatorship had. So civil war can be averted. It will take a while for it to work, it took America what? 13 years before we got it figured out? And now there's a few more blueprints to follow. The Turks are a pretty good example from a neighboring perspective.

I see this (large bombing spree) as the end of a fireworks show as the terrorists pop off as many headline grabbing articles as they can to drown out the less sensational news of Iraq's new government.

I don't know how long it will last, but signs are good that the US and Iraqi forces are cracking down with greater ease these days than just a week or two ago against terrorists and insurgents. And it is beginning to look like a large majority of Iraqi's are slowing realizing that the American presense isn't actually the Apocalypse but a better deal than what the terrorists are offering them.

Can we revisit this now?

Not sure what impact this will have, but Iran's president is accusing Israel of attacking the Askariya Shrine. What a totally loopy, batshit region. I'm seriously starting to think that the answer might just be to subjogate the entire region, raise the American flag over Mecca.

Can we revisit this now?I can't say shit following that violence. I thought we would get the terrorists to stop killing so many people with their IED's. I honestly thought we would get it done by now to be honest (at least not have it look like it was boiling over like it is). 111 people died in Iraq in sectarian warfare. Puff your chest out, don't hold back that big grin, and pat yourself on the back. Your not wrong yet, congratulations. And your suggestion now? Are you asking me if we should quit and abandon Iraq?

I can't say shit following that violence. I thought we would get the terrorists to stop killing so many people with their IED's. I honestly thought we would get it done by now to be honest (at least not have it look like it was boiling over like it is). 111 people died in Iraq in sectarian warfare. Puff your chest out, don't hold back that big grin, and pat yourself on the back. Your not wrong yet, congratulations. And your suggestion now? Are you asking me if we should quit and abandon Iraq?

Dutch, thinking something can/will happen is not the same as rooting for something to happen, or being happy if something like this happens. Please don't confuse the two.

Personally, I thought something like this was inevitable, just by virtue of taking our Saddam. I don't think any reasonable number or troops or military forces could stop this from happening.

As far as asking you if we should "quit" or "abandon" Iraq, that's not for me to judge. I just think that there were a lot of very naive people in Washington if they didn't forsee this.

I'm seriously starting to think that the answer might just be to subjogate the entire region, raise the American flag over Mecca.
You're not ever going to get me to take you seriously as long as you express yourself like that.

You're not ever going to get me to take you seriously as long as you express yourself like that.

I agree that it sounds crazy. But I haven't heard anybody suggest a better idea. Mostly the ideas are 'wait for something to blow up, and then we'll decide.'

I know it's impolitic to say so, but it's pretty obvious that most, if not all, of that region is not remotelyl capable of ruling itself.

Dutch, thinking something can/will happen is not the same as rooting for something to happen, or being happy if something like this happens. Please don't confuse the two.
The reason you bumped this thread was quite clear.

Personally, I thought something like this was inevitable, just by virtue of taking our Saddam. I don't think any reasonable number or troops or military forces could stop this from happening.
We all thought something like this was inevitable. (terror bombings against civlians and ambushing troops). What we don't know, and still don't know, is how long it will last. It's possible it can last a long time. But the mission remains unchanged. Progress still moves forward. Stand up the Iraqi Military so that we can stand down. That will take a long time, and these Iraqi troops need experience. Well, lucky them, they are getting it. How long does it take to stand up a foreign army so they can fight terrorism in a land that have never had Democracy? Nobody knows the answer, but progress on that front continues to be made.

Helping Iraq prevent a civil war isn't easy, but it's possible, and I think the media is fanning the flames of civil war talk because of the recent violence. It can happen that Iraq can quell the terrorists. But I don't believe that abandoning Iraq is the right answer.

As far as asking you if we should "quit" or "abandon" Iraq, that's not for me to judge. I just think that there were a lot of very naive people in Washington if they didn't forsee this.
It's not for you to judge? I'm just asking for your opinion, not a change in policy. You have an opinion, share it. You bumped the thread, afterall.

I know it's impolitic to say so, but it's pretty obvious that most, if not all, of that region is not remotelyl capable of ruling itself.
Seriously, what the heck are you talking about? Who is not capable of ruling themselves? What makes them not capable of ruling themselves?

Seriously, what the heck are you talking about? Who is not capable of ruling themselves? What makes them not capable of ruling themselves?

Iran elected a president who is either completely insane or else incredibly, unbelievably, cartoonishly malicious. If that's the best they can come up with, I'm tempted to think the franchise ought to be pulled. To heck with sovereignty.

Iran elected a president who is either completely insane or else incredibly, unbelievably, cartoonishly malicious. If that's the best they can come up with, I'm tempted to think the franchise ought to be pulled. To heck with sovereignty.
Iran elected somebody who used a foreign scapegoat to rile up public sentiment, calling any moderation of his opponent evidence of him being in bed with the enemy. By that standard, we aren't capable of governing ourselves either.

Iran is a controlled society. It's not logical to think someone can be insane come up through the party apparatus and vetting process.

Seriously, what the heck are you talking about? Who is not capable of ruling themselves? What makes them not capable of ruling themselves?

No, however, the region has shown that they are pretty much only capable of being run by thugs who maintain their power by stripping the rights of everyone else, outside of the ruling circle. Additionally, people them seem to be mighty intolerant of other views.

What we don't know, and still don't know, is how long it will last. It's possible it can last a long time. But the mission remains unchanged. Progress still moves forward. Stand up the Iraqi Military so that we can stand down. That will take a long time, and these Iraqi troops need experience. Well, lucky them, they are getting it. How long does it take to stand up a foreign army so they can fight terrorism in a land that have never had Democracy? Nobody knows the answer, but progress on that front continues to be made.

You and the Bush Administration have consistently underestimated the time, money, manpower and lives it has cost, and continues to cost, the United States to continue this endeavor.

As long as you continue to give low-end estimates about this endeavor, let's consider a high-end estimate:

Tell me, if it takes 20 years, 80,000 American lives, and $5 trillion of American taxpayers' money, will it still be worth it?

As long as you continue to give low-end estimates about this endeavor, let's consider a high-end estimate:

Tell me, if it takes 20 years, 80,000 American lives, and $5 trillion of American taxpayers' money, will it still be worth it?
As long as we're just pulling numbers out of thin air:

If we pull the troops out now and they nuke a city here in the US, was it worth the savings?

As long as we're just pulling numbers out of thin air:

If we pull the troops out now and they nuke a city here in the US, was it worth the savings?

Or if we don't pull out and they nuke one of our cities, was it worth the cost?

It can cut both ways.

You and the Bush Administration have consistently underestimated the time, money, manpower and lives it has cost, and continues to cost, the United States to continue this endeavor.
Obviously I disagree completely with this suggestion.

Dola,

A sign things are getting out of control is when an old school neo-con, and one of the founders of the PNAC are saying it's time to cut bait and run.

hxxp://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=266122006

Neocon architect says: 'Pull it down'
ALEX MASSIE IN WASHINGTON

NEOCONSERVATISM has failed the United States and needs to be replaced by a more realistic foreign policy agenda, according to one of its prime architects.

Francis Fukuyama, who wrote the best-selling book The End of History and was a member of the neoconservative project, now says that, both as a political symbol and a body of thought, it has "evolved into something I can no longer support". He says it should be discarded on to history's pile of discredited ideologies.

In an extract from his forthcoming book, America at the Crossroads, Mr Fukuyama declares that the doctrine "is now in shambles" and that its failure has demonstrated "the danger of good intentions carried to extremes".

In its narrowest form, neoconservatism advocates the use of military force, unilaterally if necessary, to replace autocratic regimes with democratic ones.

Mr Fukuyama once supported regime change in Iraq and was a signatory to a 1998 letter sent by the Project for a New American Century to the then president, Bill Clinton, urging the US to step up its efforts to remove Saddam Hussein from power. It was also signed by neoconservative intellectuals, such as Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan, and political figures Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and the current defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld.

However, Mr Fukuyama now thinks the war in Iraq is the wrong sort of war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

"The most basic misjudgment was an overestimation of the threat facing the United States from radical Islamism," he argues.

"Although the new and ominous possibility of undeterrable terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction did indeed present itself, advocates of the war wrongly conflated this with the threat presented by Iraq and with the rogue state/proliferation problem more generally."

Mr Fukuyama, one of the US's most influential public intellectuals, concludes that "it seems very unlikely that history will judge either the intervention [in Iraq] itself or the ideas animating it kindly".

Going further, he says the movements' advocates are Leninists who "believed that history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will. Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik version, and it has returned as farce when practised by the United States".

Although Mr Fukuyama still supports the idea of democratic reform - complete with establishing the institutions of liberal modernity - in the Middle East, he warns that this process alone will not immediately reduce the threats and dangers the US faces. "Radical Islamism is a by-product of modernisation itself, arising from the loss of identity that accompanies the transition to a modern, pluralist society. More democracy will mean more alienation, radicalisation and - yes, unfortunately - terrorism," he says.

"By definition, outsiders can't 'impose' democracy on a country that doesn't want it; demand for democracy and reform must be domestic. Democracy promotion is therefore a long-term and opportunistic process that has to await the gradual ripening of political and economic conditions to be effective."

Those PNAC guys are scary.

A sign things are getting out of control is when an old school neo-con, and one of the founders of the PNAC are saying it's time to cut bait and run.


Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Now, the question is, after reading that, are you in agreement that we should abandon Iraq now?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Now, the question is, after reading that, are you in agreement that we should abandon Iraq now?

No. My position all along has been that we need milestones to mark our progress. There is nothing right now to state where we are in the process of making Iraq self-sufficent. We keep hearing about how many Iraqi troops and policemen are being trained, but it doesn't seem to be having any effect at all on the stability over there. There is a limit to how much money and resources we can pump in to the situation. The scenario of Iraqi oil money paying for the reconstruction obviously will never come to pass.

But when members of the group that so ardently pushed for the invasion are starting to say the whole thing was a mistake, that should be a wake up call to the people who have been cheerleading with a blind devotion the whole time.

There are three main factions of people in Iraq (Sunni, Shiites and Kurds) who hate each other's guts, and no amount of willpower in trying to impose democracy on them is ever going to change that. This is just one of many things that the administration doesn't get, and it's been that way from the outset of the invasion (remember Cheney predicting a swift victory, with Iraqis throwing roses in the street?)

The biggest blunder of all was not repatriating the old Iraq army and using them to protect the border against Syria and Iran, which has become a sieve for terrorists to pour into the country. There weren't any terrorists in Iraq before we invaded, but there are thousands now. Another huge blunder was made in not adequately allocating resources for the repair and maintenance of the basic infrastructure (water, power, etc.). This caused suffering on a massive scale, and incredibly, it's still going on in some areas.

In order to save face, it's imperative for us to get the Iraqi security forces fully trained and up to speed, so we can get the hell out of there.

No. My position all along has been that we need milestones to mark our progress. There is nothing right now to state where we are in the process of making Iraq self-sufficent. We keep hearing about how many Iraqi troops and policemen are being trained, but it doesn't seem to be having any effect at all on the stability over there.
Where do you expect to hear that information? Anything the administration says is propaganda. Anything the military says is propaganda? The AP and Reuters are mum about it because it's boring news. The White House is losing the information battle. They are being beaten to a bloody pulp and I do blame the White House for that. Bush needs to do a better job than the AP at reporting to us the situation. The news will listen to nobody but Bush on the matter. And even though anything he says that is positive will be buried in the last paragraph of an article talking about some bomb going off, we need to get that info out there so people don't start losing hope.

There is a limit to how much money and resources we can pump in to the situation. The scenario of Iraqi oil money paying for the reconstruction obviously will never come to pass.
I'm not sure anybody in this White House or in the military ever suggested we were going to get free gas out of the deal. But I agree, there is a limit, that's why I support the goal of getting them on the their feet. We'll give them a fair ammount of time to get up to speed, and there is progress on this front, but 6 months does not make an army. Think about it, the US military has military doctrines that cover decades, we have history, we highlight what we have done best and throw out what we do poorly, we have Generals with 35 years of experience, NCO's with 20 plus years experience. The Iraqi military? Some of their top guys are sitting with 2 years experience. It's progress, they are getting great training (and experience sadly), but realistically it won't happen over night. We all know that.

But when members of the group that so ardently pushed for the invasion are starting to say the whole thing was a mistake, that should be a wake up call to the people who have been cheerleading with a blind devotion the whole time.
People are allowed their opinion. If they think it was a mistake now and not then, that's fine. How could you possibly expect every single person who supported something in 2002 to still support it in 2005. People change. I think John Kerry proved that was okay, right?

This is and was a very grim situation. It's a mess, I agree. And over time, without any relativity, the negative press will make some supporters in 2002 waver. Propaganda can shake the will of anybody. We all know that by now. And right now, the media's job is to throw fuel on the fire whenever it can to get more readers (at best that is their intention).

The latest round of "proof" of a civil war probably cost the terrorists about 500 bucks in bomb making supplies and a soft target with high value to detonate the bombs in. If that's all it takes to destroy a country that is trying to shake a dictatorship, we're all in big trouble.

We all want America to succeed in standing up a good free state in Iraq. Why not? I do wish the world press would have the slightest bit of sympathy with what we are trying to accomplish in Iraq. But I understand that's never going to happen. I just hope you understand the press is never going to tell us something boring like good news. Where's the body count in that?

It was a swift victory but a botched post-victory.

No, however, the region has shown that they are pretty much only capable of being run by thugs who maintain their power by stripping the rights of everyone else, outside of the ruling circle. Additionally, people them seem to be mighty intolerant of other views.

Who, the US or Iraq?

Where do you expect to hear that information? Anything the administration says is propaganda. Anything the military says is propaganda? The AP and Reuters are mum about it because it's boring news. The White House is losing the information battle. They are being beaten to a bloody pulp and I do blame the White House for that. Bush needs to do a better job than the AP at reporting to us the situation. The news will listen to nobody but Bush on the matter. And even though anything he says that is positive will be buried in the last paragraph of an article talking about some bomb going off, we need to get that info out there so people don't start losing hope.

I do want the information to come from the White House. But Bush has already stated that he will not comment on it. That is why he is getting blasted. Especially when one of his campaign points when he first ran for president was that there needs to be a timetable/forecast for the length of time troops are going to be deployed. Good milestones backed by facts and results would not be considered propaganda. Saying "we'll be there until the job is done", especially when the "job" is never really defined outside of saying "once the Iraqi people are back on their feet" is hard to take as anything other than propaganda.

I'm not sure anybody in this White House or in the military ever suggested we were going to get free gas out of the deal. But I agree, there is a limit, that's why I support the goal of getting them on the their feet. We'll give them a fair ammount of time to get up to speed, and there is progress on this front, but 6 months does not make an army. Think about it, the US military has military doctrines that cover decades, we have history, we highlight what we have done best and throw out what we do poorly, we have Generals with 35 years of experience, NCO's with 20 plus years experience. The Iraqi military? Some of their top guys are sitting with 2 years experience. It's progress, they are getting great training (and experience sadly), but realistically it won't happen over night. We all know that.

There were many in the administration, led mainly by Wolfowitz, who assured people that proceeds from oil sales would finance the reconstruction. As for the inexperience of members of the Iraqi army, we have no one to blame but ourselves for that. As Vegas Vic already mentioned, we disbanded the military before checking to see if anything could be salvaged from it.

People are allowed their opinion. If they think it was a mistake now and not then, that's fine. How could you possibly expect every single person who supported something in 2002 to still support it in 2005. People change. I think John Kerry proved that was okay, right?

This is and was a very grim situation. It's a mess, I agree. And over time, without any relativity, the negative press will make some supporters in 2002 waver. Propaganda can shake the will of anybody. We all know that by now. And right now, the media's job is to throw fuel on the fire whenever it can to get more readers (at best that is their intention).

The latest round of "proof" of a civil war probably cost the terrorists about 500 bucks in bomb making supplies and a soft target with high value to detonate the bombs in. If that's all it takes to destroy a country that is trying to shake a dictatorship, we're all in big trouble.

We all want America to succeed in standing up a good free state in Iraq. Why not? I do wish the world press would have the slightest bit of sympathy with what we are trying to accomplish in Iraq. But I understand that's never going to happen. I just hope you understand the press is never going to tell us something boring like good news. Where's the body count in that?

Yes, people are entitled to their opinions, and they are allowed to change those opinions. But when you are a signatory to a document from a group where one of their main goals was the overthrow of Saddam via any means necessary, that is a whole different level of having a change of opinion.

And it is more than just a bomb blowing up a mosque. It is the Sunnis fighting the Shiites. It has already had the effect of the Sunnis pulling out of the coalition discussions. These kinds of flare ups are going to happen no matter what, and will continue to happen long after we leave. That is a cold hard fact, and there is NOTHING we are doing on the ground to keep that from happening. If it is not happening, then how is the press supposed to report it? I just see too much resentment between the different groups in Iraq to have a stable free state. The press didn't create the ill will between the various ethnic groups in Iraq, so it's a bit of a strawman to blame the lack of progress in getting them to cooperate on the press and their negative reporting.

Helping Iraq prevent a civil war isn't easy, but it's possible, and I think the media is fanning the flames of civil war talk because of the recent violence. It can happen that Iraq can quell the terrorists. But I don't believe that abandoning Iraq is the right answer.


Chris Rock: THE MEEEEEDIA! THE MEDIA!!!

And it is more than just a bomb blowing up a mosque. It is the Sunnis fighting the Shiites. It has already had the effect of the Sunnis pulling out of the coalition discussions.


I agree with that. The bad news is not a single milestone. It's a collection of bad news events.

Chris Rock: THE MEEEEEDIA! THE MEDIA!!!So that's why you bumped the thread?

EDIT: Seriously, I realize I am in a very small minority on this sort of topic. I am not out to browbeat anybody with my opinion (Well, maybe Mr Bigglesworth, but nobody else, I swear). If you really want to discuss the topic with somebody with a polarized viewpoint, I don't mind, I love to see other people's opinions. I give you my opinion. I then asked for yours back and you wouldn't be so bold. And now this...anyway, I'll suspect you were just out to waste my time.

So that's why you bumped the thread?

EDIT: Seriously, I realize I am in a very small minority on this sort of topic. I am not out to browbeat anybody with my opinion (Well, maybe Mr Bigglesworth, but nobody else, I swear). If you really want to discuss the topic with somebody with a polarized viewpoint, I don't mind, I love to see other people's opinions. I give you my opinion. I then asked for yours back and you wouldn't be so bold. And now this...anyway, I'll suspect you were just out to waste my time.

My opinion is that we leave the Middle East. All of it. Now.

Meirsheimer was right.

The biggest blunder of all was not repatriating the old Iraq armyI also agree that we were a little overboard with the de-Ba'athification, especially in Sunni-dominated areas, but it is a double-edged sword. When we did it, it led to security forces dominated even moreso by Shia and distrusted by Sunnis, but if we hadn't done it, the security forces would be Sunni-dominated and distrusted by the Shia. It's easy to say in hindsight that we were too harsh, but finding that perfect balance at the time is more difficult. and using them to protect the border against Syria and Iran, which has become a sieve for terrorists to pour into the country. There weren't any terrorists in Iraq before we invaded, but there are thousands now.Slight nitpick on the no terrorists. At the least, Ansar al-Islam had set up shop in the northeast (and may have been getting support from Saddam, as a proxy against the Kurds.) On the rest, I'm all for putting Syria and (much more so) Iran behind a large part of the ongoing problems, as they are supplying a large portion of the money that is destabilizing the country, but I think you'll find that view somwhat unpopular in general, where most people seem to think Iraq exists in a bubble where the US is the only non-indigenous force at work.

Meirsheimer was right.If Mearshimer and the rest of the realists were right, we would have taken Iraq's oil and not bothered with this democracy. And we would have been right to do so. Personally, I think we've been overly "Realist" in our foreign policy since WWII, and it has consistently screwed us over down the road. It's high time we started trying to make the world a better place and shoot for the great, seemingly unattainable goals once again, especially while it is a unipolar world. Because even when the original experiment does not work as well as intended, the unexpected beneficial side-effects (sparking the debate on democratization in the Arab Middle East) are oftentimes greater as a whole.

If Mearshimer and the rest of the realists were right, we would have taken Iraq's oil and not bothered with this democracy. And we would have been right to do so. Personally, I think we've been overly "Realist" in our foreign policy since WWII, and it has consistently screwed us over down the road. It's high time we started trying to make the world a better place and shoot for the great, seemingly unattainable goals once again, especially while it is a unipolar world. Because even when the original experiment does not work as well as intended, the unexpected beneficial side-effects (sparking the debate on democratization in the Arab Middle East) are oftentimes greater as a whole.

I agree 100%. Instead of spending hundreds of billions on this war, we should've invested the money in TRULY getting out of the Middle East. Put the money into R&D for alternatives to Middle East oil. Completely remove ourselves from the situation.

Will the US be in that much more trouble if we just take the Sunni side in the civil war. Are there that many other foreign troops over there?

Wouldn't this put and end to most of this Bullshit?



If we can't go home until we pick a winner, lets just pick a winner and go home already.

If Mearshimer and the rest of the realists were right, we would have taken Iraq's oil and not bothered with this democracy. And we would have been right to do so. Personally, I think we've been overly "Realist" in our foreign policy since WWII, and it has consistently screwed us over down the road. It's high time we started trying to make the world a better place and shoot for the great, seemingly unattainable goals once again, especially while it is a unipolar world. Because even when the original experiment does not work as well as intended, the unexpected beneficial side-effects (sparking the debate on democratization in the Arab Middle East) are oftentimes greater as a whole.

I disagree with this reading of Mearsheimer slightly. I'm not sure that his theories on hegemonic behavior would necessarily predict that the US should take Iraq's oil and run. Security decision-making is cost-benefit that accounts for opportunities and threats in a holistic manner, and not just considers single-issues. The hegemon would take Iraq's oil only if the oil was worth the costs (considering financial costs, resulting security weakness on other "fronts", etc). Not sure what the answer is, but it certainly is not clean cut. Mearsheimer opposed the Iraq invasion from the onset, fwiw, since he did not see the invasion option as more beneficial strategically than status-quo containment.

Interestingly enough, I have become much more partial to realist views of international politics (though I am also sympathetic to constructionist explanations for realist theory) from an explanatory power standpoint. More liberal theories that emphasize cooperation over cooperation, liberal institution building over naked state power have an important place in global politics, but it seems that for these attempts at institutional and behavioral change to work, all parties have to be invested in the implementation. Unilateral attempts at change can only work with great difficulty.

As long as we're just pulling numbers out of thin air:

If we pull the troops out now and they nuke a city here in the US, was it worth the savings?

yes. because then we can drop the big hammer on the entire waste of a region and finally be done with them.

all of them.

I disagree with this reading of Mearsheimer slightly. I'm not sure that his theories on hegemonic behavior would necessarily predict that the US should take Iraq's oil and run. Security decision-making is cost-benefit that accounts for opportunities and threats in a holistic manner, and not just considers single-issues. The hegemon would take Iraq's oil only if the oil was worth the costs (considering financial costs, resulting security weakness on other "fronts", etc). Not sure what the answer is, but it certainly is not clean cut.I've never read his source material, only heard his views referred to, so maybe I'm missing something, but I think his views on hegemony render much of his work irrelevant. The whole argument that no state can become a global hegemon, but only regional hegemons underlie the basis for his power politics. Since I'd argue the US is a hyperpower and global hegemon at this point, I think the regional power politics argument, while useful in some respects, misses the big picture.Interestingly enough, I have become much more partial to realist views of international politics (though I am also sympathetic to constructionist explanations for realist theory) from an explanatory power standpoint. More liberal theories that emphasize cooperation over cooperation, liberal institution building over naked state power have an important place in global politics, but it seems that for these attempts at institutional and behavioral change to work, all parties have to be invested in the implementation. Unilateral attempts at change can only work with great difficulty.I think the main problem with both the realist and neoliberal/neoconservative (ironically, very similar) schools is that are too absolutist for effective real-world application. Under the realist view, states are monolithic actors with predictable actions, where in reality there are many different segments within the state. Under the neo view the majority of people in any given state want democracy and what is best for the country, and will take power if given the chance, while in reality the silent majority is usually more risk-averse than the extremist and reactionary elements.

So overall, I'd argue that the key is promoting secular democratic institutions (unbiased rule of law especially) but recognizing that there are a lot of reactionary elements that need to be killed or marginalized at the same time. Especially when they come from outside the original state, which is where I think our current policies are failing the most.

I've never read his source material, only heard his views referred to, so maybe I'm missing something, but I think his views on hegemony render much of his work irrelevant. The whole argument that no state can become a global hegemon, but only regional hegemons underlie the basis for his power politics. Since I'd argue the US is a hyperpower and global hegemon at this point, I think the regional power politics argument, while useful in some respects, misses the big picture.

According to Mearsheimer's view of hegemony (or at least my interpretation of his view), some states may strive for global hegemony, but they will not stay hegemons for long--other states will check the power of the would-be hegemon either because it is a perceived threat to their own security or because of hegemonic designs of their own. As you note in a previous thread, we will not be in a unipolar world for much longer (and some argue, from an economic standpoint, we never were). As predicted by Mearsheimer, other powers are making the initial steps in challenging unipolarity. To cite a couple of examples, just last year, the Russians and Chinese have formalized strategic cooperation with the aim of checking any perceived US strategic designs on continental Asia. The Europeans, via the Euro, have offered a potential challenger to the US Dollar as the global currency of choice.


I think the main problem with both the realist and neoliberal/neoconservative (ironically, very similar) schools is that are too absolutist for effective real-world application.


A very good point, and an issue that you will notice popping up again and again in the field--IR theory (no matter what it is) is primarily descriptive. Academics and policy-makers have different motivations; while you will find many in both spheres that are interested in policy-relevant theoretical ideas, professional roles dictate whether they emphasize prescription (policy-makers and think-tank wonks) or description (academics), and often never the train shall meet.


So overall, I'd argue that the key is promoting secular democratic institutions (unbiased rule of law especially) but recognizing that there are a lot of reactionary elements that need to be killed or marginalized at the same time. Especially when they come from outside the original state, which is where I think our current policies are failing the most.

I do disagree with you here. Sweeping policy change imposed from above has a rather shaky history of succes. It is difficult to set policy as an outsider, no matter how well intentioned, unless the target population is also invested in those policies. In-group out-group mechanisms manifesting in a sense of nationhood (not necessarily "nation-state hood") makes it difficult for the target to stomach outside attempts at policy influence as well. It is one thing if the target is successful at marginalizing or destroying reactionary elements on its own, but if an outside power attempts it, it will be seen in a less favorable light...

Slight nitpick on the no terrorists. At the least, Ansar al-Islam had set up shop in the northeast (and may have been getting support from Saddam, as a proxy against the Kurds.)

There may have been a small pocket of Ansar al-Islam.

As for Al-Qaeda at large, the thousands that are now in Iraq poured in after the invasion and overthrow of the government. Ironically, Osama Bin Laden hated Saddam Hussein as much or more than we did, but this all changed after the invasion.

There may have been a small pocket of Ansar al-Islam.

As for Al-Qaeda at large, the thousands that are now in Iraq poured in after the invasion and overthrow of the government. Ironically, Osama Bin Laden hated Saddam Hussein as much or more than we did, but this all changed after the invasion.The base on the Iranian-Kurdistan border comprised Ansar al-Islam, which I suppose could be best described as a smaller offshoot under al-Qaeda, although given the decentralized nature of the terrorist web that's a bad analogy. In reality, I think al-Qaeda in current form bears more resemblance to the previous Lashkar-e-Taiba than al-Qaeda pre-9/11/01. There have been other reports of the jihadis in Iraq (not just the ex-Baathists and other insurgents) throwing out Zarqawi as their leader, but that's obviously hard to confirm.

On the Osama/Saddam point, maybe you could explain to me why Osama tried brokering an alliance with Saddam during the 1990's? Indications are that Saddam more or less ignored it, but the idea that Saddam and Osama were so opposed to each other due to the secular/religious aspect that they couldn't work together are ridiculous.According to Mearsheimer's view of hegemony (or at least my interpretation of his view), some states may strive for global hegemony, but they will not stay hegemons for long--other states will check the power of the would-be hegemon either because it is a perceived threat to their own security or because of hegemonic designs of their own. As you note in a previous thread, we will not be in a unipolar world for much longer (and some argue, from an economic standpoint, we never were). As predicted by Mearsheimer, other powers are making the initial steps in challenging unipolarity. To cite a couple of examples, just last year, the Russians and Chinese have formalized strategic cooperation with the aim of checking any perceived US strategic designs on continental Asia. The Europeans, via the Euro, have offered a potential challenger to the US Dollar as the global currency of choice.The idea that hegemony will only last for a short while makes more sense, although I'm still not sure I agree with it completely. I did notice his strong opposition to our engagement with China, but I'm not as worried there, as I think India is the more likely candidate to come close to the US, but even there they are far enough behind it will take decades to lift the rural population out of poverty. (And in 20 years. let alone 50, the technological landscape will be so different as to render most predictions of the world order obsolete.) There's also Japan and South Korea, 2 of the top 10 militaries in the world, in Japan's case without really trying, that won't stand idly by and let China turn into a regional hegemon. On the Euro front, they are on the downside and become increasingly marginalized everywhere but the UN year by year. I'm a lot more worried about a new rise in fascism coming out of Europe as a backlash to the immigration issues than I am about Western European economies challenging ours. The only country I see seriously denting American global hegemony in the near future is Brazil in Latin America.A very good point, and an issue that you will notice popping up again and again in the field--IR theory (no matter what it is) is primarily descriptive. Academics and policy-makers have different motivations; while you will find many in both spheres that are interested in policy-relevant theoretical ideas, professional roles dictate whether they emphasize prescription (policy-makers and think-tank wonks) or description (academics), and often never the train shall meet.Being as I'm in a university setting, you can guess which one I feel over-exposed to ;) .I do disagree with you here. Sweeping policy change imposed from above has a rather shaky history of success. It is difficult to set policy as an outsider, no matter how well intentioned, unless the target population is also invested in those policies. In-group out-group mechanisms manifesting in a sense of nationhood (not necessarily "nation-state hood") makes it difficult for the target to stomach outside attempts at policy influence as well. It is one thing if the target is successful at marginalizing or destroying reactionary elements on its own, but if an outside power attempts it, it will be seen in a less favorable light...I understand the nationalism and resentment against an outsider telling you what to do, but I think it can still be a worthwhile effort. As hard as it would be for me to argue that Iraq is now a democracy on par with Japan or Germany, I think even the most die-hard critics would find it equally hard to argue that Iraq's political system would be as far as it would be without the massive exogenous shock (that I would argue is also producing less noticeable but significant changes in dialogue across the Arab world.)

Now in a perfect world, Iraq would progress towards democratic capitalism (which I personally believe to be the most effective forms of governing, thus every society will eventually gravitate towards) at its own pace. It took the US 120 years before women were allowed in the political process and another 50 before black people were, so expectiing Iraq to turn into a success in 3 years is a little quick, but unfortunately, due to the wonders of globalization, we don't have the luxury of sitting back. If it was just another 9/11, meh, it happens, but a nuclear (or bio attack, I don't think chem would have the same effect) and the response are simply unacceptable.

So yeah, change is best achieved from the inside, but IMO outside forces can hasten it, and in this case I firmly believe we need to do all we can now, because on balance, if we are attacked before the region is reformed, 3000 civilians, 2000 soldiers and half a trillion dollars are going to be very small numbers.

Pentagon: Iraqi troops downgraded
No Iraqi battalion capable of fighting without U.S. support

The only Iraqi battalion capable of fighting without U.S. support has been downgraded to a level requiring them to fight with American troops backing them up, the Pentagon said Friday.

The battalion, made up of 700 to 800 Iraqi Army soldiers, has repeatedly been offered by the U.S. as an example of the growing independence of the Iraqi military.

The competence of the Iraqi military has been cited as a key factor in when U.S. troops will be able to return home.
We are repeatedly told that 'as Iraq stands up, we will stand down', but as of this date, four years after the invasion, there are ZERO Iraqi units capable of fighting on their own, and it appears that we are going backwards in our training, ie the rate of our training can't keep up with the rate of decay.

So what is the best course of action? If we leave now, it looks like there will be civil war, but can staying in the country solve the underlying problems that will lead to civil war? Otherwise, there will just be a civil war whenever we do decide to leave, be it right now or ten years from now, so wouldn't it be wise to leave as soon as possible?

hxxp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060314/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_060314201834

Iraq Edges Closer to Open Civil Warfare

By STEVEN R. HURST, Associated Press Writers 1 hour, 58 minutes ago

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqi authorities discovered at least 87 corpses — men shot to death execution-style — as
Iraq edged closer to open civil warfare. Twenty-nine of the bodies, dressed only in underwear, were dug out of a single grave Tuesday in a Shiite neighborhood of Baghdad.
ADVERTISEMENT

The bloodshed appeared to be retaliation for a bomb and mortar attack in the Sadr City slum that killed at least 58 people and wounded more than 200 two days earlier.


ay