Thread: Progress in Iraq - Oh no!

Many good points have been made above. My own perspective is that we are fighting for things that we don not truly want or need.
I do not think that the war in Iraq will ever be won. Firstly, we are not fully committed as a country to victory. Those that have been to Southwest Asia have made sacrifices, myself included. The rest of the United States have been only marginally inconvenienced. Wars are not won without sacrifice.
A second and related issue is the small number of troops in Iraq relative to the population of the United States. The Rumsfeld Doctrine of small numbers of troops in large operations is a proven failure.
Third, the idea that American democracy can be imposed on non-American cultures is misguided and doomed to failure. The motivation behind the Bush admininstration's neocolonialism is unclear to me. It is possible that Mr. Bush truly believes that rest of the world should be more like America. On the other hand, commodities like oil, ambitions for world hegemony, or religious beliefs are all conceivable reasons for Mr. Bush to continue to make war in the Middle East. Many Muslims believe that the American presence is simply the crusades revisited.
My own opinion is that the Arab/Muslim social and cultural infrastructure is incompatible with democratic political systems. America should bail out of the Middle East and let the natives fight it out amongst themselves. Energy independence is our best defence. Oil indepedence will set our economy back on the right track and disenfranchise the OPEC oligarchy. Southwest Asia will return to its status as an uninteresting pile of sand.

AdamAnt

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

How (and why) did we ever get into this?

j

Well... About 8 years ago you had the general elections...

Originally Posted by Bruno

Well... About 8 years ago you had the general elections...

Thanks Bruno - I was going going to say that the Congress, the President, and the US citizenship agreed to it by a majority.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Thanks Bruno - I was going going to say that the Congress, the President, and the US citizenship agreed to it by a majority.

Actually, it was the Supreme Court, 5-4.

j

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

Actually, it was the Supreme Court, 5-4.

j

The people wanted it, the President wanted it, and the Congress wanted it
The Supreme Court doesn't send soldiers to war

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

The people wanted it, the President wanted it, and the Congress wanted it
The Supreme Court doesn't send soldiers to war

The Supreme Court overturned Florida law to give us a president who would make his case for war with cooked information. The saddest part was watching Colin Powell, whom I've always admired, dishonor himself in the process.

It's pretty debatable whether "the People" wanted it. There were hundreds of thousands of people in the streets marching against the idea in the days leading up to the invasion, if you'll remember. Polls were pretty mixed.

Congress, being composed of politicians (i.e., moral cowards), was scared into it. It simply wasn't PC to oppose the war. I lived in Minnesota at the time, and all three of my representatives to Congress voted against it, so I don't particularly feel responsible for this mess.

All in all, not a red-letter day in U.S. history.

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

The Supreme Court overturned Florida law to give us a president who would make his case for war with cooked information. The saddest part was watching Colin Powell, whom I've always admired, dishonor himself in the process.

Ah, so that's how the Supreme Court sent the US to war. Incredible!

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

It's pretty debatable whether "the People" wanted it. There were hundreds of thousands of people in the streets marching against the idea in the days leading up to the invasion, if you'll remember. Polls were pretty mixed.

No they weren't. Here is a sample of some Gallup polls from '03 http://gallup.com/search/default.asp...ate&i=&t=&p=34

Wikipedia may not have any facts straight, but it does sum up the people's opinion quite well: "The American public’s opinion of the invasion of Iraq has changed significantly since the years preceding the incursion. For various reasons, mostly related to the unexpected consequences of the invasion, the U.S. public’s perspective on its government’s choice to initiate an offensive is increasingly negative. A USA Today/Gallup Poll indicated that 75% of Americans felt the U.S. did not make a mistake in sending troops to Iraq in March 2003. However, according to the same poll retaken in April 2007, 58% of the participants stated that the initial attack was a mistake. In May, 2007, the New York Times and CBS News released similar results of a poll in which 61% of participants believed the U.S. "should have stayed out" of Iraq."

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

Congress, being composed of politicians (i.e., moral cowards), was scared into it. It simply wasn't PC to oppose the war. I lived in Minnesota at the time, and all three of my representatives to Congress voted against it, so I don't particularly feel responsible for this mess.

Regardless of the Congress' immorality or cowardice, you have to admit that they did indeed send the US on its way to war. I'm curious though which politicians specifically were actually scared into opposing the war. I want names!

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

All in all, not a red-letter day in U.S. history.

Time will tell

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Regardless of the Congress' [sic] immorality or cowardice, you have to admit that they did indeed send the US on its way to war. I'm curious though which politicians specifically were actually scared into opposing the war. I want names!

Should be pretty simple to find a rollcall of that vote. Then go back and do some research on the full-court press the Bushistas put on any congressman/woman who dared to oppose the measure. It was pretty PC.

And Congress did not "send the US on its way to war." It merely gave the president the power to go to war in the event it was necessary. Big difference, though I'm not defending Congress, the pack of weenies.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Time will tell

Yes, I'm sure it will. That's what scares me.

j

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

And Congress did not "send the US on its way to war." It merely gave the president the power to go to war in the event it was necessary. Big difference, though I'm not defending Congress, the pack of weenies.

j

And amazingly enough the same power was given to him again with Iran earlier this year.

It would be a lot less expensive and save some American lives if we just supply all violent opposing factions with arms and supplies. The opposing factions will eliminate each other far more efficiently than we ever could. Of course, once one faction eliminates another, they will move on to another group that they do not like. So I suppose this solution isn't a very good one.

Remaining there simply gives the factions a common enemy to rally against. So I suppose this solution isn't a very good one, either. The best solution is to simply leave. The mass weapons of destruction didn't exist. Excuse over. War over. Leave...

Maybe provide some medical assistance to any side that needs it during the mutual slaughter to come. Maybe not. Personally, I'd rather see my tax dollars spent inside the U.S.A.