OK. We ARE in Iraq. All the recriminations and finger pointing of why we got there is meaningless chatter at this point. There will be plenty of time later to discover if Bush was right or wrong on the process of getting us there.

But we ARE there NOW. So the yelping and partisan blather in meaningless to that point.

Here is the relevant question for those who imagine that pulling out precipitously or even gradually in as short a span as a year or two is the answer to the Iraq question:

What happens after that in Iraq and, if there is the same kind of bloodbath and oppression that happened after we left Vietnam, do YOU hold the moral responsibility for the millions who will die for your support of the pull out and a US abandonment of the region?

Today, we still see aging hippies who imagine they "won" their battle against the Vietnam war. NONE of these empty headed gits realize the many millions THEY allowed to be killed as a result of Communist victory died as a result of their desire to beat the US government.

So, if we pull out of Iraq and the region becomes even more a mess as Iran fights their enemies and the rest team up against Iran and as all parties turn against an isolated Israel... when THAT mess erupts, will YOU accept the moral responsibility for turning your back on those people?

Do you even care?

If not, then how does that square with your self-procaimed more "caring", more "civilized", more "humane" assumptions of your policy ideas?

The Democrats'persistent obsession with the past could cost them the election..If we got nothing better than GET BUSH! do we deserve to hold office?

The Democrats'persistent obsession with the past could cost them the election..If we got nothing better than GET BUSH! do we deserve to hold office?

All of this is the direct and predictable result of having attacked Iraq in the first place. The culpability is on the people who were stupid enough to support the invasion. Everyone knew it would be a quagmire. Everyone knew it would be a guerrilla war. Everyone knew it would be a civil war. Everyone knew it would destabalize the region. Everyone knew it was against our own interests. Everyone knew it was not a necessary defensive maneuver. Well, everyone who doesn't get their "news" from Rush or O'Reilly or Coulter, at least.

The culpability for the quagmire in Iraq is on those who started it, namely, George W. Bush and the people who's support empowered him to do this to us.

Boo's is the typical response that I expect from the uncaring left, I have to say.

Nothing but finger pointing and ignoring their own responsibilities. It's always everyone ELSE'S fault. They don't have ANY responsibility. Completely typical of the amoral left.

All of this is the direct and predictable result of having attacked Iraq in the first place. The culpability is on the people who were stupid enough to support the invasion. Everyone knew it would be a quagmire. Everyone knew it would be a guerrilla war. Everyone knew it would be a civil war. Everyone knew it would destabalize the region. Everyone knew it was against our own interests. Everyone knew it was not a necessary defensive maneuver. Well, everyone who doesn't get their "news" from Rush or O'Reilly or Coulter, at least.

The culpability for the quagmire in Iraq is on those who started it, namely, George W. Bush and the people who's support empowered him to do this to us.


Exactly, MV as usual is trying to pawn off his responsibilities and the responsibilities of the Bush administration onto others.

Boo's is the typical response that I expect from the uncaring left, I have to say.

Nothing but finger pointing and ignoring their own responsibilities. It's always everyone ELSE'S fault. They don't have ANY responsibility. Completely typical of the amoral left.


I shouldn't even respond to your trolling, but I have to say that anybody who blames all the deaths in Vietnam on "hippies" isn't someone who should even be listened to.

And now trying to blame this war on the people who didn't want it is as dumb as blaming the Jews for the holocaust, but do continue embarrassing yourself..

We should settle culpability for the very real mistake of invading Iraq precipitously before we worry about culpability for the hypothetical mistake of leaving Iraq precipitously. When are you going to take responsibility for your errors, MV? Or are you only interested when the finger of blame points at others?

Nothing but finger pointing and ignoring their own responsibilities. It's always everyone ELSE'S fault. They don't have ANY responsibility. Completely typical of the amoral left.

Look at what your own post is. Trying to blame the fallout of the Bush War on "the uncaring left". Just finger pointing and blame laying, becuase you think it's aways someone ELSE'S fault, and you don't have ANY responsibility for the consequences of your actions.

And, by the way, it's completely typical of the amoral neocons.

http://www.ericstrawser.com/web/pkb.gif

I shouldn't even respond to your trolling, but I have to say that anybody who blames all the deaths in Vietnam on "hippies" isn't someone who should even be listened to.

And now trying to blame this war on the people who didn't want it is as dumb as blaming the Jews for the holocaust, but do continue embarrassing yourself..

All of this is the direct and predictable result of having attacked Iraq in the first place. The culpability is on the people who were stupid enough to support the invasion. Everyone knew it would be a quagmire. Everyone knew it would be a guerrilla war. Everyone knew it would be a civil war. Everyone knew it would destabalize the region. Everyone knew it was against our own interests. Everyone knew it was not a necessary defensive maneuver. Well, everyone who doesn't get their "news" from Rush or O'Reilly or Coulter, at least.

The culpability for the quagmire in Iraq is on those who started it, namely, George W. Bush and the people who's support empowered him to do this to us.

Exactly, MV as usual is trying to pawn off his responsibilities and the responsibilities of the Bush administration onto others.


Except for when MV lashed out at the left specifically, he is correct. People can argue that the US shouldn't be in iraq until they are blue in the face, but the reality is, WE ARE THERE...

It not just Bush's problem or a problem of the "left"...
It's OUR problem, everybody's problem.
After all, Bush is the President of the United States, not the president of the red states...

So why don't we take a chnace and respond to the post and not the poster, and keep this from becoming a duplicate of every other iraq thread...

So why don't we take a chnace and respond to the post and not the poster, and keep this from becoming a duplicate of every other iraq thread... Well, let's give that a try. IF we pull out precipitously and IF a bloodbath ensues, and IF we can reasonably conclude that it's worse than if we had stayed, then those on the left (or any other side) who had specifically argued for that precipitous departure (i.e. nobody here) would bear some responsibility for having miscalculated. Only if it could be shown that the error was one not of miscalculation but of callous disregard could thatbe considered a moral rather than practical failing. If any of those conditions do not apply, and so far it seems likely that none of them do, then the moral stain MV would so dearly love to fix on the left simply does not exist. It looks more like projecting one's own failings onto others, which is apparently the right's favorite hobby.

Except for when MV lashed out at the left specifically, he is correct. People can argue that the US shouldn't be in iraq until they are blue in the face, but the reality is, WE ARE THERE...

It not just Bush's problem or a problem of the "left"...
It's OUR problem, everybody's problem.
After all, Bush is the President of the United States, not the president of the red states...


He didn't ask who's problem it was, he asked who's fault it was. We know who's fault it is. It's George W. Bush's fault, and the fault of the people who gave him the political support he needed to do this. That's what the thread is about: Who's fault is the disasterous consequences of George W. Bush's war in Iraq?

In my opinion, since it was asked, the moral culpability for George Bush's actions lay on George Bush. In MV's opinion, it's always someone ELSE'S fault.

If the US acted primarily in the interest of morality, that would be quite a change. To quote Winston Churchill, "The Americans will do the right thing, when all else fails".
Vietnam is now a potential trading partner for the US. So, in that instance, removing our military might have resulted in some temporary instability, but it apparently worked itself out.
As far as Iraq, the US helped put Saddam in power. Then the US removed him from power. Now there appears to be a civil war and US troops are in the middle. I think there's something to be said for letting the country solve its own problems in its own way. The way we treat Iraq, to give an analogy, would be like the French occupying the US after having helped us win the Revolutionary War against Britain.
More importantly, though, the idea that we're there now and need to look forward now and not look back is ridiculous. If our country was led into war based on lies and incompetence, that needs to be dealt with immediately to prevent it from happening again. If we just look forward without examining how we got here, Bush could very well pull the wool over our eyes again and get us into another mess we could avoid.
And those of us who were against the war in Iraq from the beginning, such as myself, have no obligation to ease the cognitive dissonance of those who supported this insane desert adventure. If there is something we can do to help get the troops home sooner rather than later, then as citizens I think it could be argued we have a moral obligation to do that though.

Here is the relevant question for those who imagine that pulling out precipitously or even gradually in as short a span as a year or two is the answer to the Iraq question:

What happens after that in Iraq and, if there is the same kind of bloodbath and oppression that happened after we left Vietnam, do YOU hold the moral responsibility for the millions who will die for your support of the pull out and a US abandonment of the region?

Maybe, but probably not. Any more than I hold a moral responsibility for the thousands being killed in Darfur, what occurred in Rwanda just a few years ago, what is going on in Somalia at the present, the charming tactics the People's Repbulic of China uses on dissidents, or any of a number of other massacres or genocide campaigns that have occurred past and present.

The only way Iraq becomes my moral responsibility would be if I somehow thought the removal of Saddam Hussein by US forces was a good thing and have now come to acknowledge that it has only made things worse. In that case I need to acknowledge that I ****ed up big time, that the situation in Iraq is, was and always shall be a giant cluster****. At which point I put all my efforts behind finding a Saddam clone, abandon all the twaddle about democracy in Iraq and simply do what I need to do to make a counterweight to Iran.

But of course there's nothing moral about this at all. It is pure power politics and looking out for US national interests. Though it may actually stop the civil war doubtless

Today, we still see aging hippies who imagine they "won" their battle against the Vietnam war. NONE of these empty headed gits realize the many millions THEY allowed to be killed as a result of Communist victory died as a result of their desire to beat the US government.

Huh? Have you seen the links I've posted about the neo-cons trying to squirm their way out of any responsibility for getting us into this mess? At least the hippies were consistent in their opposition.

In case you've missed them:


Selective Amnesia - The pundits who sold the Iraq War change their tune and bury their records. (http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_01_15/article1.html)

Cakewalk Crowd Abandons Bush - by Patrick J. Buchanan (http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=10267)





So, if we pull out of Iraq and the region becomes even more a mess as Iran fights their enemies and the rest team up against Iran and as all parties turn against an isolated Israel... when THAT mess erupts, will YOU accept the moral responsibility for turning your back on those people?


Please explain to me what an Israeli life is of greater worth than that of a Liberian, Zimbabwean, Somalian, Rwandan or Tibetan life. Hundreds of thousands have died in those places so far, and I've done nothing, my government's done nothing but talk (except in Somalia, and we all know how that turned out), so I'm curious why I should care more about Israel than any of those other places. Or are you advocating that we intervene everywhere and in all places?


Do you even care?


Do you care about Liberians, Rwandans, Somalians, Tibetans, etc? Should we be intervening?


If not, then how does that square with your self-procaimed more "caring", more "civilized", more "humane" assumptions of your policy ideas?

I think the most sensible foreign policy ideas for the US of A ever put forth were those of that cheese eating defeat-o-crat George Washington in his farewell address. But doubtless you're far his superior both in military matters and patriotism. :rolleyes:

You people need to forget the past and concentrate on the present, and presently you should be hoping for victory whether you believe in it or not. Even I can get passed my hatred for Bush and see the bigger picture.

you should be hoping for victory whether you believe in it or not



Why? All the hope in the world isn't going to fix this mess. "Hope" isn't a sound battle plan.

"Hope" isn't a sound battle plan.

Word.

In regards to 'Moral Responsibility' or whatever--That is the lamest thing I have ever heard. Every step of the way, previous administrations have ****ed Iraq up worse and worse and worse, and then Bush comes in to deliver a 1-2 punch... All of this over decades, and when the situation has only gotten worse, and worse with every step, and people who have been wathcing finally say 'enough, this ends now', You want to blame them for everything thats gone wrong?

You have to be pretty thick to actually buy that bullshit for a second Mobile. I know your just a talking head, but seriously, this is an absurd argument even fro you, or wherever you got it from... Unless it was Coulter or something. Then its pretty common.

If not, then how does that square with your self-procaimed more "caring", more "civilized", more "humane" assumptions of your policy ideas?

Just less stupid.

Remember, everyone explained to you people, repeatedly and very clearly, exactly what was wrong with attacking Iraq before we did it. Arrogance, hubris, and a renegade sort of foolishness drove you people headlong into it, after everyone warned you what would happen, and then it happened, exactly as everyone expected.

And you people still haven't, and likely never will, learned to listen to what the smart people are telling you.

Only if it could be shown that the error was one not of miscalculation but of callous disregard could thatbe considered a moral rather than practical failing.

The Bush Administration miscalculated when they assumed that the US Army would be greeted as liberators and that they would find weapons of mass destruction. Does that mean that the current situation in Iraq is the result of a practical failing, and not a moral one?


Oh, and to answer Mobile Vulgus' original question: when one middle-easterner kills another middle-easterner, it's the middle easterners' fault.

Does that mean that the current situation in Iraq is the result of a practical failing, and not a moral one?

Practical for one reason, moral for another, no?

The Bush Administration miscalculated when they assumed that the US Army would be greeted as liberators and that they would find weapons of mass destruction. Does that mean that the current situation in Iraq is the result of a practical failing, and not a moral one? If your assumption were true, it would follow that the failure was of a practical rather than a moral nature. However, your assumption is not true. The Bush administration actively sought out evidence that would confirm their bias, and avoided considering evidence that would conflict. That's not calculation; that's rationalization. Having avoided calculation, they could not have miscalculated, but were indeed guilty of callous disregard for the consequences of their actions. That makes their failure a moral one, though it might be a practical one as well.

Why? All the hope in the world isn't going to fix this mess. "Hope" isn't a sound battle plan.

I'm not getting through to you. We lose this, and we lose a lot more than an proxy in the ME. I hate Bush for putting us in the position but I've got to take one for the team here, and join the dark side on this one.

If your assumption were true, it would follow that the failure was of a practical rather than a moral nature. However, your assumption is not true. The Bush administration actively sought out evidence that would confirm their bias, and avoided considering evidence that would conflict. That's not calculation; that's rationalization. Having avoided calculation, they could not have miscalculated, but were indeed guilty of callous disregard for the consequences of their actions. That makes their failure a moral one, though it might be a practical one as well.

I don't necessarily agree, but that was a damn fine answer. :nice:

The Bush administration actively sought out evidence that would confirm their bias, and avoided considering evidence that would conflict.

We've all been guilty of that at one time or another. That doesn't make it okay, but it's an easy mistake to make. It's just human nature.

BTW, that was a good answer :)

OK. We ARE in Iraq. All the recriminations and finger pointing of why we got there is meaningless chatter at this point. There will be plenty of time later to discover if Bush was right or wrong on the process of getting us there.

But we ARE there NOW. So the yelping and partisan blather in meaningless to that point.

Here is the relevant question for those who imagine that pulling out precipitously or even gradually in as short a span as a year or two is the answer to the Iraq question:

What happens after that in Iraq and, if there is the same kind of bloodbath and oppression that happened after we left Vietnam, do YOU hold the moral responsibility for the millions who will die for your support of the pull out and a US abandonment of the region?

Today, we still see aging hippies who imagine they "won" their battle against the Vietnam war. NONE of these empty headed gits realize the many millions THEY allowed to be killed as a result of Communist victory died as a result of their desire to beat the US government.

So, if we pull out of Iraq and the region becomes even more a mess as Iran fights their enemies and the rest team up against Iran and as all parties turn against an isolated Israel... when THAT mess erupts, will YOU accept the moral responsibility for turning your back on those people?

Do you even care?

If not, then how does that square with your self-procaimed more "caring", more "civilized", more "humane" assumptions of your policy ideas?

Sorry, but victory in war isn't guaranteed. Sometimes the war gods don't pull through, even for imperialists. The US has only itself to blame for what has taken place in Iraq, or what will take place if/when the US leaves. Pres. Bush with the help of Congress has made the bed of the US hard, and it is a hard one indeed. No it's not the media's fault, or liberal moonbats, or pacifists, or the anti-war activists, or tree-hugging liberals, or the ROE. It's Pres. Bush and the Congress's fault, with Pres. Bush rec'g the lion's share of the blame in my estimation.

Pres. Bush is already using Maliki as a scapegoat because it's in his nature to not face facts and accept the truth. The truth of the matter is this ( I'll say it again): There is no such thing as a guaranteed victory in war. This analysis was already validated by the Defense department as it relates to Iraq before the war started, - even with 500,000 troops on the ground - but it went underreported. The analysis that I'm talking about is whether or not the peace can be won. No guarantee. And it doesn't matter how long the occupation lasts.

OK. We ARE in Iraq. All the recriminations and finger pointing of why we got there is meaningless chatter at this point. There will be plenty of time later to discover if Bush was right or wrong on the process of getting us there.

But we ARE there NOW. So the yelping and partisan blather in meaningless to that point.

Here is the relevant question for those who imagine that pulling out precipitously or even gradually in as short a span as a year or two is the answer to the Iraq question:

What happens after that in Iraq and, if there is the same kind of bloodbath and oppression that happened after we left Vietnam, do YOU hold the moral responsibility for the millions who will die for your support of the pull out and a US abandonment of the region?

Today, we still see aging hippies who imagine they "won" their battle against the Vietnam war. NONE of these empty headed gits realize the many millions THEY allowed to be killed as a result of Communist victory died as a result of their desire to beat the US government.

So, if we pull out of Iraq and the region becomes even more a mess as Iran fights their enemies and the rest team up against Iran and as all parties turn against an isolated Israel... when THAT mess erupts, will YOU accept the moral responsibility for turning your back on those people?

Do you even care?

If not, then how does that square with your self-procaimed more "caring", more "civilized", more "humane" assumptions of your policy ideas?



Very good question and summory of Nam and Iraq ! :nice:

The Bush Administration miscalculated when they assumed that the US Army would be greeted as liberators and that they would find weapons of mass destruction.


They had no business assuming something like that so lightly. The socio-political realities on the ground there should have been considered in a more meaningful way. They seemed to have only seen what they wanted to see, and only heard what they wanted to hear. It's pretty obvious that they had a plan, and then looked for excuses to support it.

And "miscalculated" is the understatement of the century. That's like calling Pol Pot "kind of weird."

We've all been guilty of that at one time or another. That doesn't make it okay, but it's an easy mistake to make.


This was about starting a war; a full scale military invasion. This isn't about assuming that your favorite soda flavor is more nutricious just because you want it to be. Making "easy mistakes" isn't acceptable in light of what they were proposing, and how much work they had to do to get their way.

I'm not getting through to you. We lose this, and we lose a lot more than an proxy in the ME. I hate Bush for putting us in the position but I've got to take one for the team here, and join the dark side on this one.

And what I'm saying is that it was lost before it was started. It already is lost, and it has been from the start. All the money we can muster isn't going to change that. There was a mountain of shit being held up by a toothpick, and we went and kicked the toothpick out. Now the shit's gonna hit. The only question is how far under it we want to be when it does.

You can't stop this thing. We, specifically the Bush Administration and it's followers, since that's the question of this thread, started it, and now it has to run it's course. And yes, it's going to be a heavy loss. That's exactly why we shouldn't have done it in the first place.

Something fishy about the whole mess . Why do you go to war against terror,then infiltrate your nation with the very ones who back this terror ? Looks to me like the world leaders are using this cult of radical islam to enslave the worlds citizens ,so they can eventually rule over them and everyone else . Wwhy else would they keep allowing muslims to invade and enslave all the worlds poor nations, while at same time fill up the first world nations with non assimilting ones .

Or maybe they have been blackmailed with hidden nukes ? Honestly , 'I really don't know what to think anymore .'

And yes, it's going to be a heavy loss. That's exactly why we shouldn't have done it in the first place.

Agree. As it already has been!

And what I'm saying is that it was lost before it was started. It already is lost, and it has been from the start. All the money we can muster isn't going to change that. There was a mountain of shit being held up by a toothpick, and we went and kicked the toothpick out. Now the shit's gonna hit. The only question is how far under it we want to be when it does.

You can't stop this thing. We, specifically the Bush Administration and it's followers, since that's the question of this thread, started it, and now it has to run it's course. And yes, it's going to be a heavy loss. That's exactly why we shouldn't have done it in the first place.

And what I'm saying is that we can if we want it bad enough. The insurgency want's it bad enough. The vietnamese wanted it bad enough. I'm of the opinion that if the average Joe took some time away from Britney Spears and American Idol to weigh what we stand to lose then then average Joe might want it bad enough, but that is probably not going to happen which reinforces your point. What was my point? I'm confused. :)

You people need to forget the past and concentrate on the present, and presently you should be hoping for victory whether you believe in it or not. Even I can get passed my hatred for Bush and see the bigger picture.


Victory? What are you talking about? Are we about to take the last hill and take the castle? There is nothing to "win".

It's either we sit around in Iraq for what? 5 years? 10? 20? Until we think we've "won" and then pull out after another 5000, 10,000, 20,000 US soldiers are dead, and whatever happens in Iraq happens. Or we leave the place now, and whatever happens in Iraq happens now, and thousands of US soldiers don't have to die for nothing like they did in Vietnam.

The big picture is that the "win" for Bush and his people will be when we have permanent military bases in Iraq, and we control the oil (as is happening now). And then by allowing the BA to do whatever they wish they will do it all over again in Iran and/or Syria, we heard the threats in his crazy speech last week. And we all lose if that happens, the only thing that could be considered a "victory", is if the neo-cons can be permanently booted from power, tarred, feathered, and run out of town..

Here's what the clueless neocons [and some other conservatives -but not all-]just don't get:


The U.S. in Iraq is a house of cards and when the U.S. pulls out [and it will have to someday,we can't stay there forever]that house of cards will fall down.

I personally think that Bush knows this and is using our young peple as cannon fodder to make sure the houe of cards will fall down after he is out of office.

And what I'm saying is that we can if we want it bad enough. The insurgency want's it bad enough. The vietnamese wanted it bad enough. I'm of the opinion that if the average Joe took some time away from Britney Spears and American Idol to weigh what we stand to lose then then average Joe might want it bad enough, but that is probably not going to happen which reinforces your point. What was my point? I'm confused. :)


I'm still waiting for somebody to define "winning" in Iraq...

Here is the relevant question for those who imagine that pulling out precipitously or even gradually in as short a span as a year or two is the answer to the Iraq question:

What happens after that in Iraq and, if there is the same kind of bloodbath and oppression that happened after we left Vietnam, do YOU hold the moral responsibility for the millions who will die for your support of the pull out and a US abandonment of the region?

Your loading the question! Take out the "millions who will die." That is a wild guess matching your paranoid conspiratorial bent. Are we morally responsible if many people die as a direct result our having 0 troops there? Yes. There is a problem in proving "direct result" here. We are there now and according to the UN 35,000 Iraqis died last year. Probably 100,000+ since we invaded. Our presence is hardly keeping the carnage down. Is it your suggestion that we stay for another 10 years? Then with those kinds of numbers, we should reach the half million mark by then. Acceptable to you?

Today, we still see aging hippies who imagine they "won" their battle against the Vietnam war. NONE of these empty headed gits realize the many millions THEY allowed to be killed as a result of Communist victory died as a result of their desire to beat the US government.

I don't think it was the hippies that forced the pullout. It was the overwhelming opinion of the people of the USA that we were wasting our time in Vietnam. Nixon saw the pointlessness of it all and we had a peace treaty. America was not going to tolerate more and more GI's dying as a result of a civil war half way around the world. We can't police the world. 10's of Millions died in Russia and China while we did nothing. Could we have stopped it? At what cost? Sure glad we didn't try. Sure am sorry for the dead, though - that's just to let you know MV that this liberal has feelings.:D

So, if we pull out of Iraq and the region becomes even more a mess as Iran fights their enemies and the rest team up against Iran and as all parties turn against an isolated Israel... when THAT mess erupts, will YOU accept the moral responsibility for turning your back on those people?

Since that is your paranoia, not mine, I'll defer the answer.

Do you even care? Hard to care about a paranoid fantasy.

If not, then how does that square with your self-procaimed more "caring", more "civilized", more "humane" assumptions of your policy ideas?

Let's see if I've got this? According to you millions of people will die if we leave Iraq; Israel will be picked on again (and them with nukes too, I bet they're peeing in their pants about another invasion from the guys who can't shoot straight). The oil will stop flowing, we won't be able to drive to work. Have I about covered it? And this will all happen because of "liberals."

So the alternative to this scenario is to have a draft, send millions of our boys to the ME to protect them from themselves. Nuke all the bad guys. Clone Jack Bauer and send them to straighten it all out. Then the few remaining neo cons can sit atop the pyre and sing German beer hall songs!

If your assumption were true, it would follow that the failure was of a practical rather than a moral nature. However, your assumption is not true. The Bush administration actively sought out evidence that would confirm their bias, and avoided considering evidence that would conflict. That's not calculation; that's rationalization. Having avoided calculation, they could not have miscalculated, but were indeed guilty of callous disregard for the consequences of their actions. That makes their failure a moral one, though it might be a practical one as well.

Yeah!

What happens after that in Iraq and, if there is the same kind of bloodbath and oppression that happened after we left Vietnam, do YOU hold the moral responsibility for the millions who will die for your support of the pull out and a US abandonment of the region?

I'm going to go with Bush's stance on the matter. I don't care. They can do as they will. Bloodbath, theocracy, whatever. Not my fight. Not my battle. Not my responsibility. That'd Dubya's position, and it sounds just fine to me.

The big picture is that the "win" for Bush and his people will be when we have permanent military bases in Iraq, and we control the oil (as is happening now). And then by allowing the BA to do whatever they wish they will do it all over again in Iran and/or Syria, we heard the threats in his crazy speech last week. And we all lose if that happens, the only thing that could be considered a "victory", is if the neo-cons can be permanently booted from power, tarred, feathered, and run out of town...

Damn skippy. What's 3000 dead US soldiers to these greed infested oil companies lining up at the trough? Nothing but collateral damage.

Damn skippy. What's 3000 dead US soldiers to these greed infested oil companies lining up at the trough? Nothing but collateral damage.
nothing but profit protection. nothing but committed customers. :barf:

nothing but profit protection. nothing but committed customers. :barf:

I hear you!

Listen, I'm sure that if we just pack up ol' Dubya in an orange crate, (along with Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, & maybe a few others,) & ship'em out to, oh, say Tehran or someplace like that, that we'll instantly regain huge amounts of credibility & the region will be largely stabilized. Who's with me?:D

Nice to see that MV is still trying to pull the old switcheroo and try and place responsibility for the Iraq disaster on the shoulders of the people that opposed it from the start.
I have to assume that Tony Snow is sending White House briefings to MV so that this forum gets a regular dose of "GWB says who? me?" just another few weeks and we can get the official version that Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore forced the Administration to invade although Cheney and Rumsfeld argued strongly against it, observers recall the tears running down Cheney's cheeks as he blubbered "For God's sake, we must think of the children"....

Listen, I'm sure that if we just pack up ol' Dubya in an orange crate, (along with Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, & maybe a few others,) & ship'em out to, oh, say Tehran or someplace like that, that we'll instantly regain huge amounts of credibility & the region will be largely stabilized. Who's with me?:D
I think he's entitled to a fair trial with adequate representation, presumption of innocence, and all the rest. It's more than he was willing to give his enemies before they were hung, but nobody should sink to his level. America should be better than that.

And what I'm saying is that we can if we want it bad enough. The insurgency want's it bad enough. The vietnamese wanted it bad enough. I'm of the opinion that if the average Joe took some time away from Britney Spears and American Idol to weigh what we stand to lose then then average Joe might want it bad enough, but that is probably not going to happen which reinforces your point. What was my point? I'm confused. :)

The only way to win, in the way I think you're talking about, is to beat down the social problems there in the exact same way Saddam did, but we're supposedly liberating them from that. We can't do that because we're not a Ba'athist country.

So to win we'd have to basically lose. I really don't see how we can have anything like a victory there, because the only victory -- a government as tyranical as Hussein's was -- would be a loss, and I don't think the Iraqi's, because of political & religious power questions in the Mideast and how they relate to Iraq, can have peace without being forced to by a govenrment that deals with insurgencies via mustard gas and machettes, and having such a government is a loss for us (and not having such a government is also a loss for us).

It's a dead end and always has been. At least that's the way I've seen it, and the way it's been playing out.

Platy,

We should settle culpability for the very real mistake of invading Iraq precipitously before we worry about culpability for the hypothetical mistake of leaving Iraq precipitously. When are you going to take responsibility for your errors, MV?

What a ridiculous position to take.

... to give his enemies before they were hung

Um its HANGED... NOT "hung".

As to "my errors"...

I "erred" in believing Bush meant to win this thing.

I "erred" in imagining that Democrats just might be as interested in the country as they were in getting re-elected.

But, I didn't make any errors in supporting the war.

I also have to apologize for not joining this debate. These last two days have had me completely jammed at work. I have had little time for extended debate, unfortunately.

Um its HANGED... NOT "hung".
According to the dictionary it's either, and the stalkers all come out of the woodwork to whine every time I correct spelling/grammar/usage. I don't suppose they'll show up to bitch at you when you do it.
I "erred" in believing Bush meant to win this thing.
That's an interesting statement. What do you think his intent was, then?
But, I didn't make any errors in supporting the war.
Yeah, because it has all turned out as well as you thought it would.

What do you think his intent was, then?

He has let mere politics get in the way of military measures so it appears that winning wasn't as important to him as he let on. What other intent there is beyond that I have no guess.

But his intent to win seems not the priority it SHOULD be as he disregarded the call for more troops until far too late. He also miscalculated that his winning election meant that he no longer needed to continue any sort of PR campaign to keep the public appraised of his ideas and the successes won. He eschewed the bully pulpit and ceded the ground to the enemies of the country like the Democratic Party, insurgents, and terrorists.

The bully pulpit is the main advantage a president has over the other branches and it is from there the people wish to hear from their leader and from there the agenda is set. Not behind closed doors with not a peep heard from behind them.

Of course, I do understand why he doesn't come out and talk more. The media is in the pockets of the enemy and Bush doesn't want to give the leftist media grist for their mills. But, that is not in his ability to chose, as far as I am concerned. He needed to emulate Reagan and take his case straight to the people and over the heads of the anti-American media. Instead he holes up and says little.

Not only does it cede the ground of the marketplace of ideas to the enemy, it leaves your allies stranded and without direction.

It is the bully pulpit that also helps corral the Party. And one can easily see Bush has lost complete control of the Party. With no pressure from the people spurred by Bush when he takes his case to the people, the representatives end up angling for their OWN career instead of seeing a reason to pull together as a Party.

Bush has failed to pull the Party together and he wasted the GOP unity that resulted from 9/11.

It was a certainty that the Democratic party would abandon security and the military after 9/11, so no one should be surprised by it. They haven't had any pro-military, patriotic, security minded politicians since the 1960s. But Bush losing too many Republicans has about ruined him and any Iraq policy he wanted to set.

So, I can only imagine that he just assumed that BEING president was all he had to do and the rest would just fall into place like clock-work. It was a naive assumption on his part.

Yeah, because it has all turned out as well as you thought it would.

If what I wanted done in the beginning WOULD have been done, there wouldn't BE this big mess. The US military IGNORED their 100 years of knowledge about small wars and insurgency learned starting in the late 1800's. And it is only lately that they are beginning to remember it all. The Marine's insurgency manual that just came out is right on the money as to its conclusions. Unfortunately, we wasted the last 4 years remembering it!

Still, even with the messiness of Iraq, it has had many, many successes, and it is these people like YOU neither know about, nor read about in the anti-American media. In fact, this war has been notable for the small number of American casualties sustained. We lose more people on our nation's highways a year than we've lost in this low grade insurgency.

When measured against many other wars this one is nothing. It is a small expenditure in treasure as well as blood.

But, like I said, it has seen years worth of time wasted, opportunities under utilized, and has lacked a "big picture" in the planning.

So, yes. It HAS had a LOT of success. but it could have SO much more and that waste is laid at Bush's feet.

If what I wanted done in the beginning WOULD have been done, there wouldn't BE this big mess.

I guess they screwed up by not inviting you to the White House!

In fact, this war has been notable for the small number of American casualties sustained. We lose more people on our nation's highways a year than we've lost in this low grade insurgency.

They must be celebrating this "success" in Iraq. 35,000 locals dead last year. Some success for an occupying army supposedly focused on security.

When measured against many other wars this one is nothing. It is a small expenditure in treasure as well as blood.

He says, firmly ensconced in the safety of his home.....in the USA.

So, yes. It HAS had a LOT of success. but it could have SO much more and that waste is laid at Bush's feet.

Don't forget all the President's men. This guy couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag without advisors. He probably didn't even know where Iraq was on a map, or who the neighbours were, prior to 2001.

I guess they screwed up by not inviting you to the White House!

Yeah... the big dummies.

That was all worth responding to in your post, though. The rest was uninformed, partisan clap trap.

MV, how's about I drop by your place & just really go to town on your house with a sledgehammer. I mean real bad: not just breaking windows, but smashing plumbing, bashing huge, gaping holes in the roof, killing your tv & computer, busting up the floors & countertops, basically just ruining everything.

Then, when you get home, sputtering with rage & disbelief, I'm gonna say, "Now now, there, Moby, it's no use bickering & arguing about how this damage was wrought. What's done is done. What we need now are solutions! Let's discuss how we're gonna get things back to normal here, okay? No sulking, there, lad; let's think positive now.:D

Oh, & just for the sake of argument, let's assume that calling the cops & making an insurance claim are simply out of the question. Hokay?

Sorry, but you wouldn't have gotten past the first sledgehammer blow before I blew off the top of your head and kicked your bloated, bleeding body to the curb.

In fact, if I knew you were coming, you wouldn't get have gotten out of your car without the lead flying.

... and I'd be smiling the whole time.

Yeah... the big dummies.

That was all worth responding to in your post, though. The rest was uninformed, partisan clap trap.

Especially the bit about your "caring less" for Iraqi deaths, while minimizing American deaths. Figures. Non caring Republican.:rolleyes:

Sorry, but you wouldn't have gotten past the first sledgehammer blow before I blew off the top of your head and kicked your bloated, bleeding body to the curb.

In fact, if I knew you were coming, you wouldn't get have gotten out of your car without the lead flying.

... and I'd be smiling the whole time.

If I could buy you for what you're worth, and sell you for what you think you're worth........$$$$

... as if YOU are somehow in a higher class??/

Don't make me laugh.

... as if YOU are somehow in a higher class??/

Don't make me laugh.

Well I think rather than rant. I read facts not fiction. I am not a bigot. I am not a sexist. I don't listen to Limbaugh. I don't brag about wanting to kill people. I can be an a*hole, but have the perspicacity to know it, most of the time.

... and you fool yourself more than you fool anyone else, sadly.