100 years in Iraq?

[RetiredGySgt]

You actually just hit on what I believe was one of the things that made this war as pointless as anything I can imagine. Keeping those groups apart and keeping out fundies was what Saddam did well. It really will take as heavy a hand as he had to get it to where it was at the onset. So all that talk about "liberating" the Iraqi people (reason number 12 for the invasion) was kind of absurd.

Given that Saddam was not an imminent threat to this country and that well over 3,000 troops have died, our treasury raped and our military pushed to its limits, wouldn't you say that there were better ways to getting to where we are now and where we need to be?

It is way past time to worry about what MIGHT have been better 4 years ago. We are where we are and have to deal with what is reality NOW, not what you think should have happened 4 years ago. Whining on and on about something that can not be changed is pointless.

If you advocate abandoning Iraq just because you dislike Bush or because we screwed up 4 years ago the heartless coldhearted one would be YOU. Further things ARE getting better.

Further NO ONE said Iraq was an imminent threat. What Bush said was he was not going to WAIT until it WAS an imminent threat.

 

[DeadCanDance]

You failed to notice the repeated news stories about the millions of Iraqis INCLUDING the minority ones that voted in the last election? Must be those special glasses you wear that filter out anything you don't want to hear or see.

Maliki wasn't elected. Its a parliamentary system.

The parliament (which was elected) has not approved permanent american military bases, and in fact a majority of them signed a resolution saying they wanted us out.

If Maliki bypasses the legislature, to agree to american bases, its not the will of the iraqi people.

 

[DeadCanDance]

It is way past time to worry about what MIGHT have been better 4 years ago. We are where we are and have to deal with what is reality NOW, not what you think should have happened 4 years ago. Whining on and on about something that can not be changed is pointless.

If you advocate abandoning Iraq just because you dislike Bush or because we screwed up 4 years ago the heartless coldhearted one would be YOU. Further things ARE getting better.

Further NO ONE said Iraq was an imminent threat. What Bush said was he was not going to WAIT until it WAS an imminent threat.

the sad fact is, time after time after time, you've been wrong on Iraq. From WMD, to nuclear programs, to tie to al qaeda, to "greeting us as liberators". You've constantly had to invent new reasons for your war, as soon as the old reasons collapse.

Given your record of being wrong virtually all the time, there's no reason to accept your speculation that permanent american military bases will be accepted in iraq, nor that it reflects the will of the iraqi people.

You'll simply be wrong again. Probably for the thousandth time.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

the sad fact is, time after time after time, you've been wrong on Iraq. From WMD, to nuclear programs, to tie to al qaeda, to "greeting us as liberators". You've constantly had to invent new reasons for your war, as soon as the old reasons collapse.

Given your record of being wrong virtually all the time, there's no reason to accept your speculation that permanent american military bases will be accepted in iraq, nor that it reflects the will of the iraqi people.

You'll simply be wrong again. Probably for the thousandth time.

I never said we WOULD have permanent bases, your the one trotting that line out. I said if they let us stay it makes perfect sense to do so.

 

[Gunny]

You actually just hit on what I believe was one of the things that made this war as pointless as anything I can imagine. Keeping those groups apart and keeping out fundies was what Saddam did well. It really will take as heavy a hand as he had to get it to where it was at the onset. So all that talk about "liberating" the Iraqi people (reason number 12 for the invasion) was kind of absurd.

Given that Saddam was not an imminent threat to this country and that well over 3,000 troops have died, our treasury raped and our military pushed to its limits, wouldn't you say that there were better ways to getting to where we are now and where we need to be?

I've said in the past that I thought Saddam the lesser of two evils. That does NOT mean the justification to remove him from power did not exist. To the contrary, it most certainly did.

Our troops have died in the line of duty. Our treasury has been raped far worse by domestic handout programs than any war. A military is pushed to its limit the second you send part of it into combat, no matter how many you have in total number.

Saddam was a threat to US interests. To me, that's justification enough in that area. But if you want to say Saddam was not an immediate threat to CONUS, then the same can be said about al Qaeda. 9/11 ring a bell?

I questioned some of the strategy and tactics used when invading Iraq. The fact is however, everything I question can be traced back to political appeasement, political correctness, and a complete misunderstanding of Arab culture vs Western culture/democracy.

The fact is, diplomacy where Iraq was concerned was a complete failure, and if the issue had been resloved in a timely manner, it would have been resolved by Clinton and not minimalized and shoved off on the next President.

 

[mattskramer]

I haven't seen the latest polls, but I would wager that 80 to 90% of iraqis want us out of there.

That seems a little bit high but here is some statistical information:

From 2004:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm

Only a third of the Iraqi people now believe that the American-led occupation of their country is doing more good than harm, and a solid majority support an immediate military pullout even though they fear that could put them in greater danger, according to a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll.

From 2006:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601721.html

A strong majority of Iraqis want U.S.-led military forces to immediately withdraw from the country, saying their swift departure would make Iraq more secure and decrease sectarian violence, according to new polls by the State Department and independent researchers.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/27/iraqis-poll/

New Poll: 71 Percent Of Iraqis Want U.S. Forces To Withdraw Within A Year.

Here is a 2007 piece of information:

http://americannonsense.com/?p=1731

… the last major opinion poll of the entire country conducted by the BBC, dating from August 2007, found that Iraqis were unimpressed with the ‘surge’ and more fed up than ever before with the occupation…

According to 70% of Iraqis surveyed in August, basic security in the country as well as the conditions needed for political dialogue had both gotten worse during the ‘surge’. Only 21% supported (even weakly) the continued presence of coalition forces. 47% of Iraqis in August wanted coalition forces to leave immediately (in a February 2007 poll that figure had been 35%). Fully 80% of Iraqis said that coalition forces had done a bad or very bad job in carrying out their responsibilities. And 72% said the presence of US troops makes security worse for Iraqis.

 

[eots]

I've said in the past that I thought Saddam the lesser of two evils. That does NOT mean the justification to remove him from power did not exist. To the contrary, it most certainly did.

Our troops have died in the line of duty. Our treasury has been raped far worse by domestic handout programs than any war. A military is pushed to its limit the second you send part of it into combat, no matter how many you have in total number.

Saddam was a threat to US interests. To me, that's justification enough in that area. But if you want to say Saddam was not an immediate threat to CONUS, then the same can be said about al Qaeda. 9/11 ring a bell?

I questioned some of the strategy and tactics used when invading Iraq. The fact is however, everything I question can be traced back to political appeasement, political correctness, and a complete misunderstanding of Arab culture vs Western culture/democracy.

The fact is, diplomacy where Iraq was concerned was a complete failure, and if the issue had been resolved in a timely manner, it would have been resolved by Clinton and not minimized and shoved off on the next President.

or if for some unknown reason NORAD and able danger did not completely fail or if the warnings from CIA and FBI agents where heeded 911 would of never happened and the nonexistence of wmbs would have also avoided a invasion .wouldn't these of been the preferable scenario? I mean unless you owned a lot of oil interest and sold military equipment or owned international construction firms

 

[RetiredGySgt]

or if for some unknown reason NORAD and able danger did not completely fail or if the warnings from CIA and FBI agents where heeded 911 would of never happened and the nonexistence of wmbs would have also avoided a invasion .wouldn't these of been the preferable scenario? I mean unless you owned a lot of oil interest and sold military equipment or owned international construction firms

I need a copy of the twilight zone and Outer limits pictures to post for just such occasions.

Hey dumb shit you are aware NORAD looks OUTSIDE our borders? I am still waiting for you to post a copy of that stand down order as well.