Iraq is like a degenerate brother in law you move in with to help out. Sure their a fluffup but you try none the less. If they want to keep fluffing up after all we've done for them may their God have mercy on their souls. God bless America, God bless the troops, God bless the democracy.

hmm we got rid of saddam and prolly took a crap load of oil.
glad its over.

Ah yes, lots of help we provided them. What with turning a relatively peaceful country into a warzone for near a decade and installing a fractious democracy that will crumble as soon as our troops depart leading to a potentially bloodier civil conflict, all based on lies our government perpetuated. Where's the love Iraq?!

The democracy is crumbling already.

The Prime Minister (Shi'a majority) had a warrant issued to arrest the Vice President (Sunni) earlier today.

bilge

The Iraq democracy never wasn't crumbling.

Neocon theories have never and will never be correct, but the real world is too messy for the theories of those morons.

Turkey has both Shiites and Sunnis, why are they capable of not massacring one another but it doesn't seem possible elsewhere in the Middle East?

I really hope you're trolling, because if you're being serious you are single handedly demonstrating why the majority of the rest of the world think Americans are ignorant.

Not trolling at all. I believe in America. We went in and gave them democracy. I'm proud to be an American. Very proud of what we accomplished. The rest of the world can think what they want. That is their business. As for me and my kin we love this country.

^^ agreed with the post above.

America has always tried to solve problems on its terms without fully understanding the cultural mindset of the adversary. I think now they and the rest of the world have recognised that a truly lasting solution to the situation in Iraq and by extension the larger Sunni-Shi'a tension + Arab-Israeli conflict has to come on Middle-eastern terms. Unfortunately, it seems that countries and groups in the middle-east will have to slug it out before they feel enough pain to want to sit down and work out a peaceful solution for the future (similar to the wars in europe which have eventually led to peace). The rest of the world can help facilitate this process, but we are in no position to solve their problems for them.

freking amen to that

Simple: a strong army with political power. The Turkish army doesn't allow it. And also they already got around 80 (ish) year experience with a secular state (although that is slowly decline under Gull and Erdogan) Soooo potentially fluff still could hit the fan

The best that America can do is to eliminate the largest threats to ourselves and our allies, be there to facilitate talks, and help with the humanitarian crises after conflicts erupt. Unfortunately, some parts of the world are simply unprepared to set aside historical conflicts. We did the best we could in Iraq, we gave Iraq a chance, and now they must either stand or fall on their own.

If we end up invading Iran, it will be for the same reason that we invaded Iraq; their leaders will have ticked us off one too many times and defied us one too many times. No nation can afford to have their prestige impugned in the way that Saddam Hussein did and the way that they Ayatollahs are doing. Looking back through history, I think it's safe to say that wars don't solve problems; they only trade one set of problems for another. Not that it means war is necessarily always the wrong choice, but you have to recognize that choosing war is simply choosing a different set of problems.

America chose a different set of problems for ourselves and for the people of Iraq. Did we have the right to choose for the Iraqis? No, but we had to right to prevent any other upstart morons from getting ideas from Saddam Hussein and we had the right to eliminate Saddam's clear danger to our country and our allies. Choosing for the Iraqi people a different set of problems came as a consequence of those decisions that we did have a right to make (regardless of the correctness of those decisions one way or the other).

This from a conservative. I think this explains why the right (in the US) is more willing to use force in foreign affairs. We choose to recognize that war is not always the wrong choice. It also explains the reluctance to fight that we sometimes have. Fighting for fightings sake is just bad business. The right needs a clear set of changes to the set of problems that will have to solved before they consent to military action, but once they have the set of changes, they don't just dismiss them (ahem pacifists).

To all the pacifists out there, a statement for consideration concerning the fighting of tyranny: Peace is conditional on there being freedom. Where there is no freedom, people struggle to attain it, hence there is no peace. Peace under tyranny is an illusion, a farce. Freedom does not garuntee peace, but it is a prerequisite to peace. Free nations still fight, but they don't have to (fight themselves) because the people are not inherently fighting for their freedoms.

'fractious democracy that will crumble as soon as our troops depart leading to a potentially bloodier civil conflict,"

they departed, where is the crumbling and civil conflict*?
*that is new..

and how do we blame america, that people who demanded from america their own choice, they turn around and fluff it up?

be happy america gave them the choice to begin with. say what you will about the evil usa, russia and china don't give a fluff if you live or die or the human rights your family lives peacefully under.

who wants to talk about norweigan fascism?

See the thing is, they didn't demand our intervention, which was why iraq became the symbol of middle eastern resistance to American imperialism.

And to Angel1, I think you misunderstood why the Bush administration went to war with Iraq. It was purely a political goal, their reasons for doing so had nothing to do with promoting democracy or fighting threats, but to ensure there was a pro-US regime in place in one of the largest oil producing countries in the world.

Just notice how conservatives questioned a much more justified military intervention into Libya, where the people were actually demanding outside intervention (unlike iraq). But because a positive outcome in libya would look favorably on the Obama administration, they opposed it. Politicians make political decisions, morality is an after thought unless it is politically beneficial.

The united states government only cares about what promotes the united states agenda abroad. Which was why the Obama administration was so reluctant to support the protests in Egypt, because Mubarak was an important US ally. Mubarak was most certainly a tyrant, yet we provided tons of military and financial aid to them.

I'm not saying you don't care about fighting tyranny and ending oppression. In fact it sounds like our beliefs are fairly similar. But don't pretend like that is our governments priority, because it most certainly is not.

There is no win or lose in war. There are only winners and losers. And I can't be so sure we came out of it as winners.

OIL FTW! ITS OURS \o/
fluff YOU ALL!

couldn't agree more with this. and the part about promoting US interests in the middle east.
All you did was giving radical islamic groups a larger base.

'oh look a hornets nest, let's beat it like a pinata'

Prior to the first Gulf War, Iraq had the best health care, education, and infrastructure in the Middle East. America did a great job of turning all that around.

"The united states government only cares about what promotes the united states agenda abroad."
That's true of any government. To do otherwise would be irresponsible.

As for war: given the high financial and resource cost of war, there should be really compelling reasons before undertaking in such a venture. In the case of Iraq, that really remains to be seen. Forcing "regime change" on countries rarely, if ever, works and has been a colossal failure in south america and most of Africa as far as the general populations are concerned.
That kind of change has to be first initiated by the people of that country. Only when they prove that they are viable can outside help really be justified.

The United States gets blamed a lot because they get a lot of attention. However China and Russia are equally as guilty, especially in Africa and the Middle East.

Speaking of the current conflicts, lets call a spade a spade, the reason why there is so much interest there is because of desire for control over resources and nothing else. It's the same reason why China is propping up certain murderous regimes in Africa.

Relatively peaceful? 1941-coup/quick war between UK and Iraq, 1958-coup, 1968-coup, 1979-coup, 1980-1988 war with Iran, 1986-1989 war against the Kurds, 1990-1991 war against Kuwait, 1993 assasination plot against Bush Sr, 1998 kicking out weapons inspectors leading to limited surgical strikes by Clinton there, and 2003-US led war on Iraq.

Sure some of this is external (UK, US wars on Iraq), but seriously calling the country relatively peaceful? It's transitioned from one brutal military dictator to another nearly every decade (until Saddam consolidated by launching 3 different wars and attempting in the begining to build nuclear weapons thereby provoking an Israeli missile strike).

Folks can argue the merits or lack thereof for the US-led war, but calling Iraq some peaceful country and implying people lived in bliss is insane. It was a violence/war-prone totalitarian state whose people lived under a constant fear of death or reprisal.

I LOL'ed. See Trumper's post to find out why I LOL'ed

If we won where is our Oil damn it! I want reps!

Angel1: "choosing war is simply choosing a different set of problems."

Sure... that's all it is. All the death, destruction, refugees, expense, generational setbacks in education and health are so easy to classify as "just a different set of problems."

How many people (Iraqis and others) died for this "simple" choice you have illustrated?

Alright, bad choice of words, saddam was a warmonger. How about internally stable at the time? That was more my sentiment, kurdish masscres aside, he did manage to keep the sunnis and shias for annhilating eachother. Not that im saying he was a good dude, just that things became much worse after we 'liberated' iraq.

wow.. just wow.. winning, really?

And how does this detract from Angel1's point?

Yes the outcomes of war are very bad for those exposed to it. Angel1 didn't say anything that denies this. His point was that war brings negative consequences, not warring would also have negative consequences (although arguably less severe) so for the US government it was a matter of deciding which negative consequences they prefer to live with. Seeing as how all the severe negativities related to the war are worn by Iraqis and not Americans, it isn't that difficult to see why they made the choice they did.

It is all cost/benefit analysis.

Thats it, thats all.

I was focusing on the use of the word "simply" to describe the choice between war or not war in rl.

Wait whut?

Sadam was a threat to US? Oh yeah WMD fiasco right?

Iraq had a dictator, but he managed to keep everything under control.

US did the worse possible thing, they took out the dictator and the structure that supported him, and that is why US fluffed big time and should had really just stayed out of that mess.

Iraq isn't just leaderless, but also lacks the structure to mantain order

Now this is my personal opinion and it has nothing really to do with the american people but more directed at the american government.

I think the US just likes to stick their nose into everyone else's business. They are the nosy neighbour who is always looking through their blinds to see whats going on around them and showing up at peoples houses uninvited. But what i really find funny is the fact that the US government put saddam in power in the first place in the 90's. He obviously didnt do what he was told to do so the US went into iraq after afghanistan. In the end i agree with someone else who posted here. They went it caused a fluff load of different problems while trying to "solve" one. And im sure in the mean time took a fluff load of resources for themselves while they were at it. Iraq had nothing to do with 911 yet they were targeted aswell.

NOw im starting to rant but ya thats just my opinion. Then come the canadians to clean up after the americans. lol (last part was just a troll if ya havent figured that out yet)

Do I believe that the removal of Saddam Hussein was a good thing? Yes. Was it best done the way it was done and when it was done? I don't know.

Hussein was a destabilizing force in the Middle East (though arguably a stabilizing force in Iraq).

Other tin pot dictators could look at Hussein and say to themselves, "He's successfully defying the US and the West, I can do it too."

He murdered his own people and committed most other atrocities as well.

He was manuevering to get out from under the sanctions imposed on him.

Imagine if Hussein had gotten out from under sanctions and Iran were pursuing their own nuclear weapon. Can you imagine the (possible) horror that would (possibly) have befallen the Middle East?

Looking back at a situation it's easy to not see "what might have been". Frankly it's easy to see it and dismiss it as impossible to know "what might have been", but where we have a clearly established pattern of behavior and some understanding of the situation, we can establish probabilities for various "what might have been"s. In the case of Saddam Hussein, I would contend that the "what might have been" would very likely have been very bad.

That being said, "what might have been" must be judged against what is/will be now. I just don't think we can know this right now. There is no established pattern here. There is no knowing what will happen in Iraq now.

Let's create a different scenario: A fighter pilot is experiencing technical difficulties. He/she has the choice of two routes to an area that he/she could relatively safely put the plane down. The shorter of the two routes goes over a densely populated urban area. The second route takes the pilot over less populated suburban area, but is a longer route. The pilot is unsure whether or not they can get the plan to the safe landing area. If you're that fighter pilot, which route do you choose? One route gives you the advantage of time; the other route gives the advantage in the worst case scenario.


Thinking about choosing a set of problems got me thinking about opportunities. With any set of problems also comes a set of opportunities. You don't just choose a set of problems; you also choose a set of opportunities. Iraq has opportunities that they did not have under Saddam Hussein. Could they fail to achieve the most they have an opportunity to achieve? Yes, but still they have the opportunity to solidify a complete and whole democracy. Iraqis did not have this opportunity under Saddam Hussein.


I really don't want to get into a debate about the merits of the Iraq war on this thread, so I guess I'd better stop here.

"Imagine if Hussein had gotten out from under sanctions and Iran were pursuing their own nuclear weapon. Can you imagine the (possible) horror that would (possibly) have befallen the Middle East?"

Absolutely. Given Iran's current pursuit of a nuclear weapon and Saddam's utter paranoia about the Iranians, there would be a nuclear arms race going on in the Middle East right now that would end up very, very ugly.

dont blow up our buildings and such things wont happen.
if u do, we will blow some country up, i leave it to others to decide if it was the right one.

Economists have a term for that Angel, "opportunity costs".

Halliburton made a ton of money, as did several other GOP heavyweight contributors. The 'war on terror' was successfully fabricated in a country that had not fired a single shot at us. Upwards of 100k heathen civilians were removed from the gene pool. Over $1T was borrowed from the Chinese and the Saudis and transferred into the grubby paws of corporate America. 4k American boys were honored with martyrdom so that we could write cool country songs about them.

Sounds like a win all the way around.

I'm entirely too fukin drunk to be posting this fluff tonight, but thank you Firefox for your kick ass spell check.

Anybody that thinks we 'won' in Iraq is a fluffing moron.

Exactly

What was done in Irag was hardly a victory.


Lost lives on both sides.
Lost of resources.
Lost of morality
Lost of international support

What was won? Democrazy? There were a hundred better ways to do it.

Stability in the middle east? Like hell.

Oil?????

The only important thing to remember here is that we went into a country with the majority of people who hate us and want to kill us. We should not be discussing victory- we should be discussing why we help people who want us dead? Who cares about their suffering? We should have turned their country into a parking lot and saved thousands of American lives. Of course, if we leave them alone the Suni and Sheites (i give a crap about spelling these worthless people correctly) will gladly kill each other. Why give them another target? Either turn them into parking lot or let them eat the sand in the desert- no more food or grain from America. Let them eat their anger and hate. No, i am not racist. I just don't care for people who want me dead simply because i am not their religion. The Koran tells them to lie to us- don't believe a word they say.

Are there better ways to achieve democracy? Yes, but two points.

Can we really say that democracy has been achieved in Iraq? I don't think so; not yet. Until now, they have had a foreign power (the US) all in their business. You haven't really learned to ride a bike until no one is holding the bike steady for you. We are only now in Iraq in a facilatory manner, much like the way that foreign watchers can help lend legitimacy to factious countries where trust among the factions is limited. The US has let go of the bike, now we find out if Iraq actually knows how to ride it.

2nd point: What ways could we have helped achieve Democracy in Iraq going from 2002 forward without some form of significant war (actual civil war, not merely sectarian violence for example)? Several ways in general become rather limited when the details of 2002 Iraq are applied.

The final history on Iraq for the last 9 years has yet to be written. We shall see what happens.

Which is why it'd be better to avoid electing neo-conservative imbeciles running for office. We made the mistake in electing Bush and his NeoCon whackaloons and look where that got us.

I'm happy that our troops are out of harms way there, proud of their conduct (with very very few exceptions), and hopeful that they will have an easy integration back into society. They were given a nearly impossible task, which they performed admirably, all too often with personal sacrifice. This country owes a debt, especially to those who have been wounded, physically or otherwise, and we must not renege on it, as we have for the veterans of previous wars.

As far as the question of victory, time will tell if we had success or not. If the government and infrastructure we left there is able to provide stability and more freedom than saddam, then mission accomplished. I am not sure if a conflict like that of the past decade can be measured with words like winning or victory.

I am still very angry at Bush & co. for setting our ability to conduct effective foreign policy in the region, as well as the secularization of Iran back a couple of decades, while undermining the secular government of Turkey. The tragic events of 9/11 gave us a lot diplomatic capital to make a difference in the middle-east to reduce the influence and numbers of the fundamentalists, and the invasion of Iraq squandered all of it.

The neo-con premise that the answer in the middle-east would be to simply go in and break a few heads is the single largest blunder in the history of the executive branch of this country.

Exactly my thoughts, 911 gave US a reason to meddle in the middle east and the world was pretty much 100% behind the US.

You went into Afghanistan and the world was behind you 100%, we would had helped you with almost anything had you asked; but then you went after Sadam and we were like "you sure about that?", then you claimed Iraq had WMD and we were "ok", and then that turned to be a lie and everyone was "fluff you".

The US went from being disliked by many, to being disliked by a few, to being disliked by most, in a record time.

Oh and I don't mean the citizens/denizens, I mean the government and its policies.


The problem with US is that they portrait themselves as saviors/heroes in movies, so when we learn that they are like every other government of the world, we get pissed because our image of them gets tainted.


Look at every movie related to World War 2, everything is about the US being the saviors, even though the ones that did most of the work were the Russians, there is also the problem of always making the allied forces mean US army, even though Canada also did their part, the British Air force did a huge part of the job dealing with the Luftwaffe, and so on.


You can resume my post in blah blah blah

Oh yeah, I meant on the European front, not about the pacific

Are you serious? Is that what they teach in history where you live? Had the US not entered the war, Europe and Russia would have fallen. Period.

We had no need to go to Europe, we could have mopped up the Japanese and cut a deal with Hitler and went right back to our isolationist closet. Instead, we committed far more resources during the early part of the war to the Atlantic theater. Even before the war it was dead US merchant marines that were keeping the UK afloat.

someone does need history lessons here. Also, one major point- it is not the US job to expand Democracy. If people in the mideast or elsewhere want commies, dictators, or whatever, i say let them have it. If their people want to overthrow that and make a demo, great lets offer advise. Otherwise our job is not nation building. We need to build our own back home.

If there is a problem or threat to us, we should destroy the threat (country or whatever), but i am not for rebuilding. If they caused the problem let them puck up the bricks. Think, if for some unknown reason, say, Iran defeated the USA, do you really think they would rebuild our country and then leave? No, we would all either be Muslim or dead. They wouldn't rebuild crap. Why do we expend our nations resources on people worth so little as these? They don't deserve it.

Yes, he managed to prevent annihilation by:
A) Expelling nearly 100k Shi'a to Iran in late 70s
B) Warring Shi'a-based Iran for nearly a decade
C) Killing Shi'a imams
D) Gassing Kurds who are ironically Sunni
E) Attacking 100k+ Shi'a in post-Desert Storm uprising

or all of the above?

Answer: all of the above.

Again, the guy was a brutal totalitarian leader, who yes, took aim at everyone, but primarily at his opponents who happened to share a Shi'a background.

I think people want to say post-2003 Iraq was worse than pre-2003 Iraq, but that's probably not a fair assessment for half of the population there who are Shi'a. Nor is it one we can accurately make until we see how Iraq progresses. Iraq may go down a path of total political instability/civil war/etc or it may go down a path more like it's oil-rich neighbors and really reverse itself. I tend to think it will eventually find the latter path. I'm not so optimistic about Afghanistan as they have poppy seeds, opium, and not much else to fall back on coupled with little education...it's a dangerous predicament there, but then again you can't fix everything and some would argue nor should we.

Yeah well lets compare then.
Idi Amin Dada, dictator of Uganda. Killed at least 500,000 of his fellow country men. US intervention: none.

Mobutu Sese Seko, president of the Democratic Republic of Congo from 1965 to 1997. Unknown number of killings. Country remained a trading partner and enabled by most of the West during that time.

I lift this quote:
"If the legal basis for the Iraq war was the removal of a parasitic dictator, as is often said, although everyone knows it was about oil, then at least as a principle of international law a precedent exists that would enable for a military invasion of Zimbabawe to be undertaken and Mugabe sent to the Hague to be tried for crimes against humanity. Why then aren't countries like Britain, France and Belgium taking more assertive action through the Security Council of the United Nations. If presently, time marks a highwater mark of anglo-american relations, why is Britain not exerting more influence on the United States for more assertive remedial action to be undertaken in Zimbabwe and Sudan. "

~~~~
don't like africa?
How about this then:

http://home.iprimus.com.au/...dtcards/SouthAmerica.html

Not to say that China bankrolling North Korea is really any better...

good argument Martain but where is all this oil we got form Iraq and why are prices so high? I want some ass kicked and i want it now!

ponderer: time will tell, but I'm better on no.

The point about Turkey is, IMHO, very important. We should be investing there to make the most secular gov't in the region look like paradise to the countries around them.

Angel1: The problem is that sometimes folks look at the "choice" in terms of just "what would (or would not) have been done about Iraq"... but the choice had FAR greater implications than that. Not only did we cost lives, lose lives, and gain little, but we have spent nearly $1T in direct costs + interest over 8 years. The opportunity cost of THAT is enormous. I know you didn't want to debate the Iraq war in particular, but this type of opportunity cost must be considered in any "war" choice. Lives, Treasure, Freedom, Reputation, Collateral Damage / Side Effects, etc.

The military industrial complex is itself a de-stablizing force for the world.

People seem to realize the basic theory of how "money burns a hole in your pocket"... i.e. people tend to spend instead of save and even things they didn't need/want before they had spare money suddenly become attractive just because they have the money.

Frankly, I think weapons and military power are the same way. It also burns a hole in our pocket. I mean why have it if we aren't going to use it? There must be something we can do with it to justify the huge expenses in our federal budget. So let's find a conflict, or create a conflict... heck, there are plenty of options, lets just pick one! I mean, do we even know what we'd do if our entire military had to stay home for a decade with nothing to do?

Yes, but what's the relevancy of your point? That it should be all or none? Clearly there is a ranking system involved. Some argue intervention should be purely humanatarian based, others argue it should be purely national self interest, others argue no intervention at all, and then many argue blends of all of the above.

None of that changes the fact that Saddam was a brutal dictator nor do they justify Saddam's sadastic choices. I mean if I say Stalin was worse than Hitler in terms of killing peopel does it make attacking Nazi Germany wrong because the US/Canada/insert whomever didn't go after Stalin? Of course not. It's a faulty way of arguing it. Your point is that you think the ranking system is wrong and that's fine, but why not just say that?