“I know how to win wars. I know how to win wars”

[Epsilon Delta]

I must say I really enjoyed your response. I was smiling most of the way through it. I'm glad I found someone wordier than me...lol.

Truth be told I was trying to leave for home when the request came for the essay. So, it's hardly as tight as I would like to have made it. But, I'll do what I can for you.

First, do not confuse my support for the policy with support for Bush or his execution of the policy. As I've said elsewhere I've never been a fan of his and I think he made a laundry list of mistakes in his prosecution of the war.

That said, who in America? Well, come on. Let's have a serious discussion here. America as a nation-state as set against an extra-national opponent. Since all citizens security interests are at stake, everyone collectively. Nobody gets to have a little stamp of approval for each and every thing done.

No, my point wasn't that Bush et al. expected open arms and waving flags. As I carefully stated, the benefit of Iraq was not a short-term project. In the short-term, in fact, as you correctly state, it is likely to "fan the flames." But that's obvious. What's much more subtle, and to my point, was after the fighting has been over for 5 or 10 years and the US is by and large gone in any kind of military capacity, what will the effects on the region be if there is an economically successful, free Iraq? What the neo-cons hope for is that the youth of the Middle East look at that example and say, "Why not here? Why not in my country? Why must we live under a despotic ruler?" That, of course, is the "We've succeeded beyond all realistic expectation" outcome. Acceptable results include a country rather like Jordan. Not really too much for us or against us, but a stable relatively good actor in the region. It would be nice if they liked to trade with us too. My reaction upon looking at what it would take to "do" Iraq was 10 years and 10,000 KIA. So far we're over-performing. Again the what I was trying to get across, for the "benefit" part of the exercise, you have to wait 15-20 years. But, as I said, Bush said this was a 50 year war, so a 15-20 horizon is not unreasonable in that context.

Ah, I didn't say "conservatives" worship democracy. I said neo-cons do. Confusing the two is a mistake. I don't believe they have a historical basis to look at to examine how well their theories work. I understand the references you cite, but I don't think the neo-cons had much to do with those.

As far as the which country question, yeah I damn sure hope they have some oil and I hope we get some of it too. For those of you who argued this war was for oil, well? Where the fuck is it? Come on! point to all this oil. The War is won, now where's the damned oil? But, seriously the strategic location, the people and the relative condition of the country after sanctions were probably the most important consideration.

Sinister? Um...this is war on a global scale. We're the world's last remaining super-power and people are gunning for us. Time to toss out the rose colored glasses, put down the sheet music to Kumbaya and strap on your big boy pants. Of course we are acting in our self-interest and in the process stepping on (and because we are over weight) breaking a few toes. (In your translation killing millions). That's what happens when a thumb gets jabbed in the eye of a sleeping super-power (9/11). You'd think that people would think twice before doing it, but I guess they aren't too rational. So, yes, sinister and I don't have a problem with that. Others would do it to us if they could, don't think they wouldn't.

Is it worth it? Not too be crass or cavalier, but yes. I was prepared for up to 10,000 KIA, anything less is a blessing. More people died in two hours at Normandy that have died in 5 years in Iraq. 10 times as many died in Vietnam. More people have been murdered in CA since the beginning of the war. Was that worth it?

And, no I wouldn't want my country used as a fly swatter either but C'est la guerre. Ok that was cavalier.

= O But but but.... Ok, well, I like the fact that it was good response, and ok, I accept the point that you do not support the Bush administration, but... I mean... breaking a few toes... it's seriously millions of people in Iraq being killed or exiled, I mean, yeah, less American military casualties than expected but... it's such a gigantic human cost for Iraqis... a country that had absolutely zero connections with Al-Qaeda, which Al-Qaeda actually completely abhorred for being a secularist nation... I mean, where is this connection between the "War on Terror" and Iraq beyond the fact that invading Iraq caused the islamists to move right in? And it comes after a brutal war for a decade, a brutal sanctions regime for a decade, and now a brutal occupation for a decade- all the while being systematically oppressed by an evil regime. I mean, can't anyone imagine that? Imagine being a normal, let's say shopkeeper, or auto mechanic born in baghdad in 1973 or so? The first thirty years of your life have been absolutely brutal and then you get INVADED and at least one of every thirty people you've met have DIED, one out of ten has been forced into exile? I mean, just thinking about it makes me feel so lucky that I can't even begin to comprehend! Imagine living in exile, forced out of your home in a blaze of smoke and fire, dead loved ones all around you... And it's not just in some foreign land where they sent you to fight or you chose to, which must be absolutely brutal too, but it's your very home where you've lived all your life! It might one thing, you know, Germany, Japan, their populations were all for war, big powerful countries, thought they could take over the world, but C'mon... the vast majority of Iraqis probably HATED Saddam and his regime. I'm just trying to say that these are real people; humans just like you and me, of flesh and bone, two legs and no feathers. MILLIONS affected. I just personally can't imagine the suffering.

Ok, wait, I'm sorry, I'm just getting over the shock.

So, again, it's a discussion board so let's have some discussion.

1) Well, yeah, when talking about Terrorism, then yes, the security of a country is at stake and therefore everyone in it. I guess the main thing is I'm still back in 2003 mentality, you know, before there were Islamist terrorists in Iraq, and it was America's leadership versus an impoverished third world country. And to have a serious discussion on the War and Occupation of IRAQ, it's crucial to make the distinction that, before it started, there was no connection! There was no terrorist threat until it was created by the American invasion. We can all agree on that, right?

2) Well, I certainly hope that Iraq turns out well, but I still don't understand how punching someone in the face repeatedly is going to make them successful or get them to like you. I mean, is that gonna be the strategy for every conflict? 'They don't like us, let's punch 'em in the face till they do?' It's just not reasonable. I think you can find polls see that Iraqis probably like the US less after destroying their country. I mean, I could go look it up and get back to you maybe, but it's just a hunch.

3) You're right, I'm sorry, that was my mistake. Most of those were just Cons and not Neo-Cons. So to correct, I'll only stick to the Contras, Suharto, and South Africa. (I am assuming that Reagan's people were Neo-Cons, correct? I mean, most of them are in the white house nowadays). Ignore the other examples.

4) Ah, the oil the oil the oil. Where's the oil? It's right there! First under Halliburton contracts for preliminary development, and now distributed to oil gigants Shell, Exxon, Total, BP, and Chevron... through no bid contracts. As I said before, the infrastructure in Iraq was nil before the war, and it takes time to get it flowing... not to mention that it's not profitable to start drilling while granades are flying around. But now that seems to be a bit down so, where is the oil? In the hands of American, British, and French oil firms. Mission accomplished.

5) What I meant by sinister is that how can any war be just, if there is only a desire to have war, and not even a target. Like, let's say someone kills your kid, you wanna kill them. In this case, I'm talking STRICTLY about Iraq... you just wanna kill somebody. Doesn't matter who. And you do it. It's sinister! I mean, getting their thumbs jabbed in the eye of the super-power? Can you provide any evidence that Iraq had absolutely anything to do with the terror attacks of 911? There was never any evidence on that. Like you said before, they got picked cuz it was easier, it was strategically feasible. It had nothing to do with Islamic fundamentalists. Let's just be realistic, compared to Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc, Iraq was one of the most ""liberal"" states in the region (QUOTATION MARKS). 0 connection to Al-Qaeda. How can it be justified to attack just some country cuz of a geographical accident? I mean, sure, you can make the case against afghanistan, they were operating there, you could've even made the case against Saudi Arabia, all of them were FROM there, but KSA is an ally despite being the most fundamentalist regime in the world, nothing happens to them! I mean, when talking about the beginnings of the war, you gotta talk about the beginnings of the war. NOW I guess Iraq's part of the war on terrorism, but only now, only after the war started. How can you say the invasion itself was the best thing to do to retaliate against the fundamentalists of 9/11 when iraqies had nothing to do with it? It just doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

[sealybobo]

Maybe, I was never for invading Iraq in the first place. I always thought we could take care of Saddam and his buddies with a few bullets. However we did Invade Iraq, and Now I do not see leaving it in ruins, a defeat, as a good option.

I agree most people would only use nukes as a last resort, However I do not think Radical Fundamentalist Muslims are most people.

Do you not want to leave Iraq in ruins or do you not want Iran to have it? Because that's going to happen one way or the other. Either we go bankrupt trying to prevent that or we leave sooner rather than later. We should have thought of this before we took Saddam out of power. He was a Sunni. Now Iraq is ruled by Shiites. Iran is Shiite. Done deal.

AD TEXT:
DOCUMENTATION:

In Chicago. In Saint Louis. And Seattle, the American people are demanding a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.
A June 2008 Time poll found that 56% of Americans believe that the United States should bring most of the troops home from Iraq in the next year or two, compared to 39% who thinks the U.S. should wait until Iraq is relatively stable. [Time Poll, 6/18-6/25, 2008]
A June 2008 CNN poll found that 64% of Americans wanted the next president to remove most troops from Iraq within a few months of taking office, compared to 33% who would rather see the next president keep the same number of troops in Iraq. [CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll, 6/26-6/29, 2008]

In Baghdad and Basra and Tikrit, the Iraqi people...
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. In Baghdad, for example, nearly three-quarters of residents polled said they would feel safer if U.S. and other foreign forces left Iraq, with 65 percent of those asked favoring an immediate pullout, according to State Department polling results. [Washington Post, 9/27/06]
A poll by the State Department found that 65% of people polled in Baghdad, 80% of people polled in Tikrit/Baqubah, and 56% of people polled in the South region which includes Basra, felt multinational forces should leave Iraq immediately. [Washington Post, 9/27/06]
A poll by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland found that 71 percent of Iraqis questioned want the Iraqi government to ask foreign forces to depart within a year. [Washington Post, 9/27/06]

...and now the Iraqi Prime minister are also demanding a timetable.

Bolstered by recent Iraqi military successes, Prime Minister Nouri Maliki proposed that negotiators include a timetable for the departure of U.S. troops in any agreement to continue the American presence in Iraq beyond the end of the year. [Los Angeles Times, 7/8/08]
Mr. Maliki, facing opposition from Iraqi political parties wary of American intentions, told Arab leaders last week that he was prepared to negotiate only a shorter-term agreement. He said he would insist on a timetable for withdrawal. [New York Times, 7/16/08]

But John McCain doesn't want a timetable.
Addressing a town hall audience in Albuquerque, N.M., Republican presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain slammed Democratic rival Sen. Barack Obama's suggestion that the U.S. needs a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. [PBS, OnLine News Hour, 7/15/08]
McCain: "We are winning...And if we still adopt Sen. Obama's proposal for a set date for withdrawal, this very fragile success that we have achieved will be jeopardized. That's what Gen. Petraeus says, and that's what Osama bin Laden says." [Reuters, 7/14/08]
Senator McCain repeatedly voted against a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq. [S. Amdt. 3876 to S.Amdt. 3874 to H.R. 2764, Vote #438, 12/18/07; S.Amdt.. 3875 to S.Amdt.. 3874 to H.R. 2764, Vote # 437, 12/18/07; S.Amdt.3164 to H.R. 3222, Vote # 362, 10/3/07; S.Amdt. 2898 to S.Amdt. 2011 to H.R. 1585, Vote #346, 9/21/07; S.Amdt. 2924 to S.Amdt.. 2011 to H.R.1585, Vote #345, 9/21/07; S.Amdt.2 087 to S.Amdt. 2011 to H.R. 1585, Vote #252, 7/18/07; S.Amdt. 643 to H.R. 1591, Vote #116, 3/27/07; S.Amdt. 4320 to S. 2766, Vote #182, 6/22/06; S.Amdt. 4442 to S. 2766, Vote #181, 6/22/06; S.Amdt.. 2519 to S.1042, Vote # 322, 11/15/05]
McCain: "I believe to set a date for withdrawal is to set a date for surrender." [Charlotte Observer, 9/16/07]

He'll spend hundreds of billions of dollars more...
According to an analysis by Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard public finance lecturer Linda J. Bilmes, the war in Iraq is costing $720 million a day or $500,000 a minute. [Washington Post, 9/22/07]

to keep our keep our troops in Iraq for years and years.
McCain: "[M]ake it a hundred" years in Iraq and "that would be fine with me." [Derry, New Hampshire Town Hall meeting, 1/3/08]
McCain on how long troops may remain in Iraq: "A thousand years. A million years. Ten million years. It depends on the arrangement we have with the Iraqi government." [Associated Press, 1/04/08]

John McCain. It's time to end the war and move on.

 

[Ravi]

True, some of them just hate us, but I bet you that most suicide bombers are broke when they do what they do. The terrorists pay their families after they blow themselves up.

Or threaten to kill their families if they don't do it. But I have read of several suicide bombers that weren't from poor families at all. Like the 9/11 gang.

 

[Charles_Main]

Umm the full quote from McCain included as long "as long as there is stability and Americans are not getting killed" But feel free to keep taking only part of the quote, I know it has much more effect that way

P.S. Please remember I am not voting for McCain Or Obama, I just don't like seeing people misrepresent what anyone said.

 

[sealybobo]

Or threaten to kill their families if they don't do it. But I have read of several suicide bombers that weren't from poor families at all. Like the 9/11 gang.

True true true. They are brainwashed with martardumb. LOL.

 

[Shogun]

What if the "we have to finish the job" crowd offered a gameplan other than occupation? What if the "lets leave now" peeps understood that we ARE there and have an opportunity to turn our effort into more than talking points?

anyone remember The Shogun's Great Iraq War Solution?

 

[sealybobo]

today on nova m radio the host dug up another McCain flip flop. He and Lieberman were on meet the press before the Iraq war and both men said we should finish the job in afganistan before starting another war on another front.

I have to say, they both sounded like different men. Same voices but completely different opinions.

I wonder why the "liberal" media doesn't call McCain out on all his flip flops.

Remember, back then McCain was a refreshingly blunt and honest guy, plus he was still sore with Bush over the election. Today he is kissing Bush's base's ass, and Liebermann was still a Democrat.

It makes me question if McCain is a leader or being led by people more powerful than him. In other words, McCain tried to do it his way but now knows if you want to be the gop president, you have to toe the party line. You have to answer to the real people that run your party.

Obama gets most of his money from us, the masses, so he answers to us.