Thanks to Bush, bad could get worse

[Guest Gichin13]

Luckydevil, if someone handed you a million bucks, you'd probably complain about having to carry it.

You characterize our actions in Iraq as introducing an element of instability into the region, but (A) what we're introducing is change, and ( the place was hardly stable to begin with. The military mission was accomplished. The mission of establishing an autonomous democratic Iraqi government was accomplished. The people there voted in elections that actually mattered for the first time in decades. Perhaps you don't remember the euphoria of Iraqis after Baghdad fell, where they were ripping up posters of Saddam or hitting it with their shoes. Perhaps you don't remember the euphoria of people dancing in the streets and proudly showing off their ink-stained fingers.

There is a lot of work yet to be done, and nobody ever said it was easy. As a matter of fact, President Bush said explicitly that it is going to take a long time. And we've made mistakes. But there has never been a mistake-free war -- and as wars go, the casualties in this one have been tremendously low. And those challenges mentioned in your post are just that -- challenges.

One other thing. I'm a Marine. Airborneskins, Sarge, NavyDave and myself share not only military service, but a common outlook on this war. We see it in a way that you refuse to see it, or are incapable of seeing it. And if all you can think about Bush is he lied, then you'll never see him as the President that liberated Iraq. (Go ahead, ask an Iraqi.)

I think it the reaction over there is a bit more mixed than viewing us as the liberators, but in the main I agree with much of your post. I am not happy with Bush's (mis)representations prior to the war (and I backed us going in there based on what he and his people were saying). I also question some of the planning and things that happened, but I understand things are messy in armed conflict.

The reality is that now that we are there, we need to get the job done and I am 100% behind our military in that role.

As far as "mission accomplished", I think it is more frustration with another situation of inaccurate description coming from the President. You can tap dance around it, but the fact remains that we are still fighting and losing lives over there. To the average person (including me), that translates to the job really is not over yet. That does not mean that we pull the plug and make the situation far worse though.

[chomerics]

That does not mean that we pull the plug and make the situation far worse though.

How do you know pulling the plug will make it far worse? How do you know that our mere presence is not making things far worse for the Iraqis?

[NavyDave]

The KLA was in essence our ground forces to compliment the high bomb drops and we are still in Kosovo and Bosnia since 1995.

We are still in Germany which had terrorist attacking us during the marshal plan something the spineless liberals convinetly forget as well as the fact just over a decade ago there was a Berlin Wall that behind it was tyranny for over 50 years yet after 3 years we should have instant democracy and stability.

We are still in Korea

We are still in Japan.

Should we just pack up and leave?

There are reasons peaceniks aka the flower kids can be seen but not listened to and a good example is what we are seeing in France right now.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

You have no idea how their constitution is going to be manifested. It says a lot about you that you assume the worst.

Aren't you assuming a best case scenario?

[jbooma]

How do you know pulling the plug will make it far worse? How do you know that our mere presence is not making things far worse for the Iraqis?

Chom we pulled out in 91, we can not pull out here until the job is finished, and that is only when Iraq can defend itself. We would lose any faith and trust that we now have with some of the Middle East leaders and people.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

Chom we pulled out in 91, we can not pull out here until the job is finished, and that is only when Iraq can defend itself. We would lose any faith and trust that we now have with some of the Middle East leaders and people.

Jbooma, you are right. I think this "war" is B.S. but as Colin

Powell told Bush "If we break it we have to fix it".

[chomerics]

Chom we pulled out in 91, we can not pull out here until the job is finished, and that is only when Iraq can defend itself.

Yes, we pulled out in 91' and there were no terrorist training camps in Iraq for 12 years, but there are now that we are in control of the country. . . In fact, Iraq was a pretty stable and predictable country. Hell, if the choice is what we have now compared to 91, then I'd prefer 91' any day of the week.

We would lose any faith and trust that we now have with some of the Middle East leaders and people.

What faith and trust? Seriously, who in this world trusts us? Hell, we have weakened all of our alliances because of our ropugh forign policy, and we have increased hatred towards us on a global scale. If anything, out presence in Iraq makes matters a LOT worse, and it makes it more difficult to fight terrorism.

[jfurdell]

Please stop claiming that Iraq had WMDs "to the best of our knowledge" in 2003. There were plenty of people who thought that the circumstantial "evidence" Colin Powell presented to the UN wasn't enough of a justification for war. Most of Europe said invading was a bad idea, and that the UN weapons inspectors should be given more time. And then there was that whole "sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" claim.

But that was (supposedly) the reason we went to war... because Iraq was perceived as a threat TO US. All these humanitarian reasons are all good and well in retrospect, but they probably could have been accomplished WITHOUT sacrificing the lives of 2,000 good soldiers and [unrevealed] thousands of Iraqi civilians.

This war is a scar on our history. We retaliated blindly for 9/11 to feel like we got some manner of revenge. Completely shameful.

[AlexRS]

I wanted to comment on the "US being in Iraq makes terrorists attack us away from home" notion. It seems to suggest that we would have things blowing up here in US if not for Iraq war.

That is not the case. We FACILITATE attacks by being there. 99.9% of these people have NO MEANS OF ATTACKING US HERE. No means and no motivation. So what do we do? We come to them. We go and put our armed forces in harm's way. We go and give them propaganda material on a silver platter. Why?? Because that cab stuffed with IED would make it half way across the world???

Seriously, think about it. We are not reducing terrorist attacks in US by being in Iraq. No. We are giving terorrists recruits and propaganda material. We are making more terrorism.

If X represents a chance of a terrorist attack anywhere in the world at any given point... us being in Iraq makes X larger. How else can I put this?

If Y represents a chance that an American dies as a result of a terrorist attack - us being in Iraq makes Y larger. Isn't reducing Y the whole effin point???

[Art Monk Fan]

Yes, we pulled out in 91' and there were no terrorist training camps in Iraq for 12 years, but there are now that we are in control of the country. . . In fact, Iraq was a pretty stable and predictable country. Hell, if the choice is what we have now compared to 91, then I'd prefer 91' any day of the week.

This is the thinking that created the modern Middle East, Chom. Turning a blind eye to the poverty and brutality of these regimes prepared the soil in which terrorism has grown. For too long the West has selfishly ignored this problem, siding with stability, regardless of its creator -- we didn't care how bad things were for the people living under these regimes as long as they were quiet and the oil flowed. Now we reap the fruits of the harvest we have shown, and your answer is to prepare the soil for another crop -- nice.

[AlexRS]

but wait, there is more...

You can argue that by being in Iraq we will reduce Y in the long run. Again, this is not the case.

Saddam's Iraq was not a breeding ground for terrorism. He was a horrible, horrible man... and yes he did not like us. But we were not attacked by a state-sponsored terrorist. State-sponsored terrorists are easier to track down. No state would want to support a terrorist action against US for fear of our wrath. Especially not Saddam's state.

Things that facilitate terrorism:

- Hate

- Money

- Logistics (ability to move around and between borders unnoticed)

- Anarchy (strong and centralized government limits terrorism breeding)

What have we achieved with the war? More hate, same money, better logistics for terrorists (less border control for moving in and out of Iraq), and more Anarchy.

Do you think the government we put in would better control terrorism breeding grounds? Will it have more anarchy than Saddam's government? Yes it will.

The bottom line is, Saddam's government would actually be better at preventing terrorism. Better than anything we put in there. If we wanted to make sure Iraq is not involved in terrorism we should have used Saddam as a tool to do so. He had control of the country, and I am sure he wanted to stay in charge one way or another.

[NavyDave]

Funny but none of you spineless sniveling liberals are asked to fight for your country in either war and I'm quite sure you didnt b1tch and moan when Clinton had us in Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo or doing air strikes in Iraq.

Exactly what are you trying to accomplish with the liberal spin of the useless or played out illegal war nonsense besides undermining the troops?

When there is a democratic Iraq I dont want to hear any of this I was with the troops the entire time nonsense.

[chomerics]

This is the thinking that created the modern Middle East, Chom.

No, it is irrational thought like an enemy of an enemy is my friend that got us into this freaking mess th begin with. It is moronic forign policy in the ME that got us into this situation.

Don't you fint it just the least bit troubling that our two biggest bad guys were once our political puppets? Don't you realize we were the ones who trained Bin Laden and gave the WMDs to Saddam in the first place?

You see, it is thought like your own that caused all the turmoil in the ME, and you are to blinded to even realize this. Why don't you turn off Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, stop listening to propaganda stations and start looking at a position from all sides before you sprout more of your jibberish nonsense.

[chomerics]

Funny but none of you spineless sniveling liberals are asked to fight for your country in either war and I'm quite sure you didnt b1tch and moan when Clinton had us in Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo or doing air strikes in Iraq.

Exactly what are you trying to accomplish with the liberal spin of the useless or played out illegal war nonsense besides undermining the troops?

When there is a democratic Iraq I dont want to hear any of this I was with the troops the entire time nonsense.

So tell me how you can support an administration that knowingly puts out intel at risk, commits treason from within the walls of the white house and calls people like yourself "wackos" who will do what ever they want you to??? Kind of hard to defend somebody who says you'r a wacko and will defend them no matter what huh ND.

[Art Monk Fan]

No, it is irrational thought like an enemy of an enemy is my friend that got us into this freaking mess th begin with. It is moronic forign policy in the ME that got us into this situation.

Don't you fint it just the least bit troubling that our two biggest bad guys were once our political puppets? Don't you realize we were the ones who trained Bin Laden and gave the WMDs to Saddam in the first place?

You see, it is thought like your own that caused all the turmoil in the ME, and you are to blinded to even realize this. Why don't you turn off Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, stop listening to propaganda stations and start looking at a position from all sides before you sprout more of your jibberish nonsense.

I'm the first to admit that the "Realpolitik" which the U.S. has employed in the past created this mess. I espoused the policies at the time and I openly admit that I was wrong to do so. It was short-sighted, selfish and possibly racist to excuse every abuse to protect my own comfort -- and now my way of life is at jeopardy as a result.

I am open to re-evaluating my won ideas Chom, my post is a perfect exanple of this. It is you who are being short-sighted and stubbornly holding your ground, not me.

And for the love of God, we've gone back and forth on this at least a half-dozen times, Chom -- I don't now, nor have I ever, listened to Rush Limbaugh. You really need to cut that part of the DNC/MoveOn.org talking points out before pasting them in response to me in the future, it's getting rather tedious.

[AlexRS]

Funny but none of you spineless sniveling liberals are asked to fight for your country in either war and I'm quite sure you didnt b1tch and moan when Clinton had us in Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo or doing air strikes in Iraq.

Exactly what are you trying to accomplish with the liberal spin of the useless or played out illegal war nonsense besides undermining the troops?

When there is a democratic Iraq I dont want to hear any of this I was with the troops the entire time nonsense.

Dave,

Let's take the political spin off of this. Political spin is what undermines the troops. This is not about criticising wars started by Republicans and supporting wars started by Democrats. That would be unfair and biased.

I am not underming the troops. I support our troops. But that does not mean I have to believe that the war is justified. It does not mean that I have to blindly believe whatever line of reasoning the White House choses to use to justify the war. And we all know they have changed that line of reasoning as they see fit.

No, we cannot get out of Iraq now. We have gotten ourselves into this. But THIS WAR WAS A MISTAKE. I support the troops that are there. I do not support people who sent them there on FALSE PRETENCES.

It is very sad indeed. It is sad that we have lost 2000+ american lives because of a lie. It is a shame. I support our troops but I refuse to lie to them just like our administration does. They sacrificed for their country, but their country lied to them. These 2000+ lives were lost for wrong reasons, and their sacrifices were NOT JUSTIFIED. It is a damn shame.

If saying this is undermining our troops - then continuing to lie to them and changing up reasoning behind the war is spitting in their face.

[Popeman38]

First, we didn't need UN or our allies approval to invade Iraq due to the aggreements made By Sadaam after Gulf War I. He violated the agreements which gave us a green light to invade whenever we wanted. France was against it (because they had so much invested in oil), and ask them how they have been doing the last few days! And who is leading the rioting? You Islamic findamentalists.

Second, we followed a war plan in Afghanistan drawn up under Clinton, and now the liberals are complaining about the way the war there has been "abandoned". If Clinton were in charge, these same people would be lauding him for having the knowledge to conduct this war when everyone else was against it.

Third, the Dems are trying to stage a legal coup in DC based on the Scooter Libby indictments. All of a sudden they are authorized to hold the Bush Admin to the fire based on faulty pre-war intel which, by the way, the Dem leadership agreed with. John Kerry is on record saying he is for troop withdrawals (reducing troops) while at the same time saying he wanted more troops to finish the mission (increasing troops).

When Clinton was in office and the Reps tried to end his Presidency, the Dems were saying the Reps were out for a lynching and should get over the fact that the Reps lost the election. But now, Dems are working "for the good of the American people" in trying to end the Bush Presidency while crying foul over having the last 2 elections "stolen". And Dems think that the President should nominate more "middle of the road" Judges to the Supreme Court because the people do not want conservitive judges. Um, last I checked the people have been leaning more and more to the right as a whole (minus CA and NY), which is how the Bush Presidency came about.

Chom, I await your thrashing now!

[chomerics]

And for the love of God, we've gone back and forth on this at least a half-dozen times, Chom -- I don't now, nor have I ever, listened to Rush Limbaugh. You really need to cut that part of the DNC/MoveOn.org talking points out before pasting them in response to me in the future, it's getting rather tedious.

Rush is a symbol of republican propaganda more then anything, and you have thrown it around quite a bit. Your inability to admit that the Niger-Iraq connection never existed is a blatent admission of where you get your information from. The only outlets that have ever professed that it existed are radical far right POV pundits and in fact, even moderate conservatism acknowledges that this did not exist.

This is one reason why I listen to the otherside all day, because it tells me where you get your information from. I hear stuff like that on Rush, O'Reily Savage et all, and it is a complete lie. . . but it is entertaining when I see others try to say the BS it 100% true, such as you did in the other thread.

[Popeman38]

Dave,

It is very sad indeed. It is sad that we have lost 2000+ american lives because of a lie. It is a shame. I support our troops but I refuse to lie to them just like our administration does. They sacrificed for their country, but their country lied to them. These 2000+ lives were lost for wrong reasons, and their sacrifices were NOT JUSTIFIED. It is a damn shame.

Lie is a very strong word. You have to prove that the admin intentionally spun pre-war intel to change the landscape. EVERYBODY agreed before the war that Iraq had WMD. The UN, France, UK, John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy....

I would say that that right there says it wasn't a lie. The intel may have been faulty, but that does not constitute a lie.

[Popeman38]

This is one reason why I listen to the otherside all day, because it tells me where you get your information from. I hear stuff like that on Rush, O'Reily Savage et all, and it is a complete lie. . . but it is entertaining when I see others try to say the BS it 100% true, such as you did in the other thread.

Chom,

O'Reily doesn't like Bush....

[NavyDave]

So tell me how you can support an administration that knowingly puts out intel at risk, commits treason from within the walls of the white house and calls people like yourself "wackos" who will do what ever they want you to??? Kind of hard to defend somebody who says you'r a wacko and will defend them no matter what huh ND.

What intel is put at risk?

A career desk jockey who isnt covert who lobbies for her hubbie to undermine the US by saying he found no evidence that Iraq SOUGHT to purchase yellowcake not DID BUY and HAD as we are supposed to believe had said.

Treason?

You mean the media and liberals calling terrorists freedom fighters and the troops Nazis or running a Gulag?

Heck name one thing positive the liberals have said was done by the president or the troops.

[AlexRS]

Lie is a very strong word. You have to prove that the admin intentionally spun pre-war intel to change the landscape. EVERYBODY agreed before the war that Iraq had WMD. The UN, France, UK, John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy....

I would say that that right there says it wasn't a lie. The intel may have been faulty, but that does not constitute a lie.

Granted lie is a very strong word, I feel it is appropriate to use here.

We wanted to invade Iraq and we did it. Administration did whatever it needed to do to make it happen. Invading Iraq was the goal, not means to achieve a goal. That is the biggest and most blatant lie. They wanted to sell the war, not make sure Iraq stays away from WMDs.

This was not an "honest mistake" by our administration. We did not attack Iraq because (we thought) it had WMDs. We attacked Iraq because we wanted to. When WMD reasoning got exposed the administration simply came up with another line of reasoning.

[chomerics]

Second, we followed a war plan in Afghanistan drawn up under Clinton, and now the liberals are complaining about the way the war there has been "abandoned". If Clinton were in charge, these same people would be lauding him for having the knowledge to conduct this war when everyone else was against it.

Funny, but Afghanistan is the one thing both Democrats and Republicans can agree on, it was necessary. . . too bad the leader decided to invade Afghanistan with under 15,000 troops yet went into Iraq with 8 times that amount huh. I mean if we went into Afghanistan with 120K troops, we absollutely would have caught Bin Laden.

Third, the Dems are trying to stage a legal coup in DC based on the Scooter Libby indictments. All of a sudden they are authorized to hold the Bush Admin to the fire based on faulty pre-war intel which, by the way, the Dem leadership agreed with. John Kerry is on record saying he is for troop withdrawals (reducing troops) while at the same time saying he wanted more troops to finish the mission (increasing troops).

The dems agreed with it because they were fighting for their political lives. They thought they had to because the repubs have falsely propagandized the nutjobs into thinking the dems are soft. Hell, if it was Gore in office, he's have been 10 times as hard on the terrorists as Bush simply to eliminate any Republican BS talking points. But now, you feel vindicated because democrats were wrong as well :doh:

When Clinton was in office and the Reps tried to end his Presidency, the Dems were saying the Reps were out for a lynching and should get over the fact that the Reps lost the election. But now, Dems are working "for the good of the American people" in trying to end the Bush Presidency while crying foul over having the last 2 elections "stolen". And Dems think that the President should nominate more "middle of the road" Judges to the Supreme Court because the people do not want conservitive judges. Um, last I checked the people have been leaning more and more to the right as a whole (minus CA and NY), which is how the Bush Presidency came about.

Chom, I await your thrashing now!

The Repubs tried to end Clintons presidency because of a blow job. The dems want to end the Bush presidency because he falsely represented the facts and lead us into a war which was pre-ordained BEFORE 9-11.

Hmmmm, lying about a blow job or lying which causes us to go to war. . . I'l take the BJ any day of the week :doh:

[Art Monk Fan]

This was not an "honest mistake" by our administration. We did not attack Iraq because (we thought) it had WMDs. We attacked Iraq because we wanted to. When WMD reasoning got exposed the administration simply came up with another line of reasoning.

You're being disingenuous here (I'll do you the courtesy of refraining from calling you a liar). The administration made a mistake in focusing on WMD as the primary rationale for war. The full complement of arguments in favor of invasion have always been in play, the administration made the mistake of focusing on one in order to have a simple message it could push -- they applied classic marketing strategy to the effort. The claim that they have "changed" their rationale, or "created" new reasons is disingenuous at best and a lie at worst. Carefully read the speaches made by this administration during the build up to war and you will find the humanitarian and other rationales included after the discussiong of WMDs. The selective hearing and memory of the left is rather convenient to their position.

[Art Monk Fan]

. . . I'l take the BJ any day of the week :doh:

Finally, something on which we can agree.