Not safer, Mideast worst, what did we spend it on?

[Stephen Eisel]

Viva Iraq!

Here is irony. Iraq had pretty modern Womens Rights. Iraq had a modest amount of freedom of religion.

In..Saudi Arabia..there is not freedom of religion. There are not womens rights. that means half the population in Saudi Arabia is more repressed than a small fraction of the population in Iraq.

It is good for a president to have realistic goals. It is good for a president to be honest. I would have settled for only one of those. But all we got was none of those.

So did anyone ever say that the invasion of Iraq was solely based on human rights issues? or are you going off topic again?

[ryan costa]

How about Afghanistan and Women's Rights?

I voiced no objection to the invasion of Afghanistan. Though perhaps things would be going better in Afghanistan if the resources spent in Iraq were all being spent in Afghanistan.

Here is something I remember from the time between the invasion of Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq. My college had hosted some kind of get together. people from the town and a neighboring college came to discuss it. The people advocating the invasion of Iraq were overwhelmingly thick: they just kept repeating slogans and phrases, much of which were proven later to be untrue.

Some exchange students from India were also there. They weren't Muslim. But they were against the invasion of Iraq. Perhaps they understood(rightly and obviously) that it would serve no purpose and destabilize the entire region. Also, they mentioned how Pakistani terrorists had blown up one of their own legislative buildings recently(with legislators inside), and how the United States had heavily urged India not to go to war with Pakistan.

At this point withdrawing from Iraq could be catastrophic, even more catastrophic than what we've shepherded Iraq into presently. It is important to educate people why we are there. We are there because George Bush and his friends are stupid, dangerous, powerful, and violent.

[Stephen Eisel]

I voiced no objection to the invasion of Afghanistan. Though perhaps things would be going better in Afghanistan if the resources spent in Iraq were all being spent in Afghanistan.

Agreed!!! They should have taken Saddam (Uday and Qusay) out and then let what was going to happen, happen... Ok some troops (but not 100k's). They knew going in that Al Qaeda was going to be drawn into Iraq... Khadafi got the message after a missile hit his palace....

[Dustin James]

...Some exchange students from India were also there. They weren't Muslim. But they were against the invasion of Iraq. Perhaps they understood(rightly and obviously) that it would serve no purpose and destabilize the entire region. Also, they mentioned how Pakistani terrorists had blown up one of their own legislative buildings recently(with legislators inside), and how the United States had heavily urged India not to go to war with Pakistan.

Two countries that have been at each other's throats for 60 years - and both very weaponized with Nuclear arsenals. It's naive to think we would encourage war between the two. Of COURSE we would heavily urge against it.

At this point withdrawing from Iraq could be catastrophic, even more catastrophic than what we've shepherded Iraq into presently. It is important to educate people why we are there. We are there because George Bush and his friends are stupid, dangerous, powerful, and violent.

Fanatics want all of western civilization taken back to the 12 century. The opposite of those traits mentioned above would be intelligent, passive, weak and tame; 3 out those 4 cannot help us survive terrorism. Yet as mentioned earlier in this very thread, all the biggest opponents to the war signed the orders for us to go in. They saw the same evidence and trends - it was bi-partisan, not just George and his friends but his political enemies were on board too. Were they "stupid?"

It's interesting to observe different perspectives on what we are accomplishing there. Here is another:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07262007/po ... peters.htm

New York Post-- July 26, 2007
Winning In Iraq And losing in Washington
By Ralph Peters

To a military professional, the tactical progress made in Iraq over the last few months is impressive. To a member of Congress, it's an annoyance.

The herd animals on Capitol Hill - from both parties - just can't wait to go over the cliff on Iraq. And even when the media mention one or two of the successes achieved by our troops, the reports are grudging.
Yet what's happening on the ground, right now, in Baghdad and in Iraq's most-troubled provinces, contributes directly to your security. In the words of a senior officer known for his careful assessments, al Qaeda's terrorists in Iraq are "on their back foot and we're trying to knock them to their knees."
Do our politicians really want to help al Qaeda regain its balance?
Gen. David Petraeus and his deputies sharply prioritized the threats we face in Iraq : Al Qaeda is No 1, and Iran's Shia proxies are No. 2 Our troops hunt them relentlessly. And we don't face our enemies alone: Iraq's security forces have begun to pick up their share of the fight.
A trusted source in Baghdad confirmed several key developments that have gone largely unreported. Here's what's been happening while "journalists" focused on John Edwards' haircuts:* Al Qaeda lost the support of Iraq's Sunni Arabs. The fanatics over-reached: They murdered popular sheiks, kidnapped tribal women for forced marriages, tried to outlaw any form of joy and (perhaps most fatally, given Iraqi habits) banned smoking. In response, the Arab version of the Marlboro Man rose up and started cutting terrorist throats.
* Since the tribes who once were fighting against us turned on al Qaeda, our troops not only captured the senior Iraqi in the organization - which made brief headlines - but also killed the three al Turki brothers, major-league pinch-hitters al Qaeda sent into Iraq to save the game.
Oh, and it emerged that the Iraqi "head" of the terrorists was just a front - in the words of one Army officer, Omar al Baghdadi was "a Wizard of Oz-like creation designed to give an impression that al Qaeda has Iraqis in its senior ranks."
* Al Qaeda has been pushed right across Anbar, from the once Wild West to the province's eastern fringes. The terrorists are still dug in elsewhere, from the Diyala River Valley to a few Baghdad neighborhoods - but, to quote that senior officer again, "our forces have been taking out their leaders faster than they can find qualified replacements."
Even the Democrats yearning to become president admit, when pressed, that al Qaeda's a threat to America. So why didn't even one of them praise the success of our troops during their last debate?
But let's be fair: Congressional Republicans, terrified of losing their power and glory and precious perks, haven't rushed to applaud our progress, either. They'll give up Iraq , as long as they don't have to give up earmarks.
* It isn't only al Qaeda taking serious hits. After briefly showing the flag, Muqtada al-Sadr fled back to Iran again, trailed by his senior deputies. Mookie's No. 2 even moved his family to Iran. Why? Though he's been weak in the past, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is now green-lighting Iraqi operations against the Jaish al Mahdi, the Mookster's "Mahdi Army."
With its descent into criminality and terror, the Mahdi Army, too, has been losing support among Iraqis - in this case, among Shias.
And Iraq 's security forces increasingly carry the fight to the militia:
* The Iraqi Police Tactical Support Unit in Nasiriyah came under attack by Mahdi Army elements accustomed to intimidating their enemies. Supported by a brave (and tiny) U.S. advisory team, the police commandos fought them off. Instead of a walkover, the militia thugs hit a wall - and got hammered by air strikes, for good measure. Then the Iraqi police counter-attacked. The Mahdi Army force begged for negotiations.
* In Mosul , Iraqi army and police units stuck to their guns through a series of tough combat engagements, with the result that massive arms caches were seized from the terrorists and insurgents. In Kirkuk , Iraqi police reacted promptly to last week's gruesome car-bombing - in time to stop two other car bombs from reaching their intended targets.
* In Baghdad, the surge isn't only about American successes - Iraqi security and intelligence forces conducted a series of hard-hitting operations against both al Qaeda and Iran-backed Special Group terrorists.
What were you, the American people, told about all this? Well, The New Republic published a pack of out-of-the-ballpark lies concocted by a scammer claiming to be a grunt in Baghdad. Our soldiers, he wrote, spent their time playing games with babies' skulls, running over dogs for fun and mocking disfigured women in their mess hall.
Anyone who knows our troops or has visited Iraq could instantly spot the absurdities in this smear and the soldiers in the unit denied that any of it happened - but The New Republic (which refuses to produce its source) isn't exactly staffed by military veterans.
The editors wanted to believe evil about our men and women in uniform, and ended up doing evil to our troops. (Those editors ought to be sentenced to spend August in Baghdad with the infantrymen they defamed, cleaning out military port-a-johns in the 130-degree heat.)
Is success suddenly guaranteed in Iraq ? Of course not. The situation's still a bloody mess. But it's also more encouraging than it's been since the summer of 2003, when the downward slide began.
Gen. Dave Petraeus and his subordinate commanders are by far the best team we've ever had in place in that wretched country. They're doing damned near everything right - with austere resources, despite the surge. And they're being abandoned by your elected leaders.
Maybe the next presidential primary debate should be held in Baghdad .

[ryan costa]

Iraq was contained before the invasion.

India and Pakistan have a few nukes. They can only drop them off the backs of elephants. They are so overpopulated it doesn't really matter if they use them against each other. Which they probably wouldn't have. They've been having short wars with each other since the partition.

There were no iranian invaders or al queda operations(recruitment has been up!) before U.S. invades Iraq.

The "global war on terror" was against Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists. Iraq was a pretty secular place. No worse than Belarus. They even had "diversity".

9/11 proved al you really need are a few plastic box cutters and microsoft flight simulator.

Japan was pretty much flattened by conventional bombing before we nuked them. nukes are psychological.

Assymetrical warfare works to our advantage. If it were Symetrical Al Queda would have thousands of planes, missiles, surveillance satellites, and half a continent.

Why get us into trouble we don't have to go through?

But, if you want to make Iraq the 51st state, only 34 years to go.

British Army Ends NIreland Mission
Source: Associated Press/AP Online
Publication date: 2007-07-31

By SHAWN POGATCHNIK



BELFAST, Northern Ireland - The British army marked a milestone of peacemaking Tuesday as it formally ended its 38-year mission to bolster security in Northern Ireland.

The military's longest-running operation officially was ending at midnight. But the symbolic moment came months after the reality - no British troops have been on patrol on Belfast streets for two years.

As of Wednesday, all 5,000 soldiers remaining in this long-disputed corner of the United Kingdom will be committed to training for operations in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere overseas.

Analysts and ex-soldiers are debating whether British security forces defeated the outlawed Irish Republican Army, which waged a 1970-1997 campaign to overthrow Northern Ireland by force. But all sides agree the IRA's 2005 decision to renounce violence and disarm has permitted British soldiers to beat their own retreat.

"We don't need them any more," said Chief Constable Hugh Orde, commander of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which increasingly can operate in most of the IRA's Roman Catholic power bases. For decades, police patrols in these areas required backup from troops.

The central goal of the Good Friday peace accord of 1998 - a joint Catholic-Protestant administration that includes the IRA-linked Sinn Fein party - was revived in May and has been operating harmoniously.

The other key goal, forging a police force supported on both sides of the community, is more than midway through a 10-year reform program. Catholic numbers in police ranks have more than doubled to 21 percent, and Britain hopes to transfer control of Northern Ireland security to local hands next year.

Two dissident IRA groups continue to plot attacks. But Orde and Lt. Gen. Nick Parker, who commands the new "peacetime" army garrison, say the dissidents will be defeated by gathering intelligence, not by deploying troops.

"There are still places where, sadly, a very small number of people are determined to wreck all that has been achieved," Orde said. "We have to be very mindful of that threat, but we can cope with that."

The British army once had 106 bases and 27,000 troops in Northern Ireland, and had 44 bases here only two years ago. It now has fewer than 20 bases and expects to have just 10 by April.

"The change in the political and security reality of Northern Ireland since ... 2005 has been even more dramatic than we could have hoped," said Irish Foreign Minister Dermot Ahern.

The official end of Operation Banner - the codename used for the deployment of troops as peacekeepers 38 years ago - has triggered introspection throughout Britain and Ireland, where tens of thousands bear physical and psychological scars from a conflict that left 3,700 dead. Among those were 763 soldiers and 309 people killed by soldiers, chiefly Catholic civilians and IRA members.

Britain deployed troops in August 1969 to end Protestant mob attacks on Catholic homes in west Belfast and street battles between Catholic civilians and Protestant police in Londonderry, the second-largest city. Most soldiers, welcomed by the Catholic minority, expected to stay for only weeks.

Instead, Britain permitted Northern Ireland's Protestant government of the day to wield control over how British forces were used. A newly formed Provisional IRA began launching attacks against police and, eventually, the army, killing its first soldier in 1971. Protestant leaders used the army to impose internment without trial almost exclusively against IRA suspects.

In 1972, the army committed its deadliest act, the Bloody Sunday massacre in which 13 unarmed Catholic demonstrators were shot to death in Londonderry. That year proved the deadliest for both the army and Northern Ireland as a whole: 470 slain, including 102 soldiers.

Sinn Fein justice spokesman Gerry Kelly, who led the IRA's first car bomb attacks on London in 1973, accused Britain of repeatedly spurning offers to negotiate.

"It could have come to a conclusion much sooner ... but the British political establishment kept pushing for a military victory that the British army itself knew was impossible to achieve," he said.

Protestant leaders said the problem was prolonged by local hatreds, and the army's presence prevented a collapse into civil war.

"The reason the army came into Northern Ireland in the first place was because we couldn't find a way to live together, so let's not blame the army for what happened," said Protestant lawmaker Jeffrey Donaldson. "We shouldn't forget their sacrifices. There were families who sent their boys over here to hold the line - and they came back in a wooden box."

Retired Col. Mike Dewar, a security analyst who served several tours in Northern Ireland, called the death toll in the early 1970s "horrific - a much higher casualty rate than what we have suffered in Iraq or Afghanistan."

Intelligence agents eventually built a detailed picture of the IRA, and undercover army squads wiped out several IRA units in ambushes in the 1980s and early 1990s - a brutal strategy that Dewar credits with spurring the IRA's cease-fire.

"The IRA were clearly infiltrated. The pressure became unbearable for the IRA," Dewar said.

But a former soldier, John Moore, who was paralyzed from the waist down by an IRA bomb in 1981, said he felt no sense of triumph, only relief.

"There were no victories. Surely no one in their right mind wants to go back to those dark days," said Moore, who served in the Royal Green Jackets Regiment. "All it brought was pain, death and destruction."

Publication date: 2007-07-31

[Stephen Eisel]

Iraq was contained before the invasion.

Nope

[Phil Florian]

Iraq was contained before the invasion.

Nope

Yup. Saddam was a caged animal who paced back and forth in his cage, snarling a lot, but had no weapons or ability to arm enough to fend off Iran or the Saudis. His posturing and blather were all that kept him and his country alive. We burst in their like John Wayne, found that he lacked any serious arsenal or method of attacking his own neighbors, let alone the US or our interests. We cut the head off of the toothless lion and the jackals who had kept their distance pounced on the remains and set the region from continual boil to overflow.

The nuclear inspectors proved this very fact prior to the invasion, even though evidence was trumped up to the contrary to make him look like a threatening and tempting target. Gads, even Bush isn't denying this fact any more. People can stop apologizing for him.

[Stephen Eisel]

Iraq was contained before the invasion.

Nope

Yup. Saddam was a caged animal who paced back and forth in his cage, snarling a lot, but had no weapons or ability to arm enough to fend off Iran or the Saudis. His posturing and blather were all that kept him and his country alive. We burst in their like John Wayne, found that he lacked any serious arsenal or method of attacking his own neighbors, let alone the US or our interests. We cut the head off of the toothless lion and the jackals who had kept their distance pounced on the remains and set the region from continual boil to overflow.

The nuclear inspectors proved this very fact prior to the invasion, even though evidence was trumped up to the contrary to make him look like a threatening and tempting target. Gads, even Bush isn't denying this fact any more. People can stop apologizing for him.

LOL! Fact: Both political parties thought that Iraq had WMD's. Fact: Both a Democratic and Republican President took military action against Iraq because of the WMD issue. Fact: Saddam was supporting terrorism. Fact: 1.5 tons of Enriched Uranium was found in Iraq after the US lead invasion. Fact. Iraq stopped the weapon inspections by the UN. A

Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Bill on WMD's on Iraq(click here)

Al Gore on Iraq (click here)


Who started the lie?? (click here)

[ryan costa]

attacking supposed WMD facilities does not require deposing the regime of Iraq.

Nor did deposing Saddam require completely dismantling the Iraqi military/police.(that worked un-well).

I don't quite understand the point of rationalizing the occupation by quoting other officials boilerplate committee speech rationales for rationalizing the occupation.

At most, in retrospect, the decision to invade and occupy Iraq should have been the initiative of UN members closer to Iraq. The manpower to occupy Iraq should have been their responsibility and initiative. The U.S.'s sole contribution would then have been naval and air force support, satellite and communications support, etc.

[Stephen Eisel]

attacking supposed WMD facilities does not require deposing the regime of Iraq.

Nor did deposing Saddam require completely dismantling the Iraqi military/police.(that worked un-well).

I don't quite understand the point of rationalizing the occupation by quoting other officials boilerplate committee speech rationales for rationalizing the occupation.

At most, in retrospect, the decision to invade and occupy Iraq should have been the initiative of UN members closer to Iraq. The manpower to occupy Iraq should have been their responsibility and initiative. The U.S.'s sole contribution would then have been naval and air force support, satellite and communications support, etc.

The quotations prove that Iraq was a threat to the US. If Iraq was not a threat to the US then why did Bill bomb them on 12-16-98? The Clinton admin chose to deal with Iraq and terrorism one way and the Bush admin chose a more aggressive solution towards both after 9-11. The reason for the invasion was to contain the threat that Iraq posed to the US. WMD's in the hand of Saddam according to our leaders both Democrats and Republicans was a threat to our safety. The reason Bush invaded Iraq was to neutralize the threat of Saddam using WMD's or giving WMD's to terrorist or giving him any more time to develop them. Had we not invaded Iraq and WMD's were used against the US. You would be crying that Bush did not do enough...

[Joe Whisman]

It is about oil, oil, oil and oil. We have an oil president. What did anyone expect to happen?

[Stephen Eisel]

It is about oil, oil, oil and oil. We have an oil president. What did anyone expect to happen?

I was at least hoping for cheaper oil / gas prices.. Rodham/ Clinton, Gore and Bush are not names that I link with the poor.

[Dustin James]

It is about oil, oil, oil and oil. We have an oil president. What did anyone expect to happen?

Not sure what an "oil president" is. Yeah, yeah he has a clue that it's valuable because his family was in the business. Whatever. Remove the allegations and remove the president from the situation to find the truth.
I think you miss the larger point.

It IS about oil. Stability in that region is not just to our best interests, but our survival. No president is going to go on CNN and delicately explain that to the masses. Might as well scream "fire" in a theater. Well maybe not. Having been in a Wal-Mart parking lot recently, I have less confidence these days in general for what the masses can comprehend.

It's more accurate to say we have an oil nation.

An oil nation that would catastrophically stop cold if oil from the Mideast ceased flowing. Look around you. An entire economy based on fossil fuel. Our enemies need not be rocket scientists to know this. The Saudis are the devils we know. If they collapse the options start to fall like dominoes.

U.S. National security does not stop at our coastlines, as unseemly as that may appear to some. If you value your lifestyle and freedoms, imagine it with our country strangled with no oil. Every truck that delivers goods -stopped, highways empty, stores with dwindling supplies...the list is very long and the downside would be beyond comprehension.

New sustainable energy sources are THE issue of our time. Not hearing any candidates on either side of the aisle really pounding this home. Oil is not something we want to go cold turkey off of using--- voluntarily or involuntarily...especially if you don't want to see the great depression again, with A LOT more people this time.

Like it or not, the U.S. has big stakes in it's addiction to oil. Don't kid yourself that it is just partisan politics.

.

[ryan costa]

attacking supposed WMD facilities does not require deposing the regime of Iraq.

Nor did deposing Saddam require completely dismantling the Iraqi military/police.(that worked un-well).

I don't quite understand the point of rationalizing the occupation by quoting other officials boilerplate committee speech rationales for rationalizing the occupation.

At most, in retrospect, the decision to invade and occupy Iraq should have been the initiative of UN members closer to Iraq. The manpower to occupy Iraq should have been their responsibility and initiative. The U.S.'s sole contribution would then have been naval and air force support, satellite and communications support, etc.

The quotations prove that Iraq was a threat to the US. If Iraq was not a threat to the US then why did Bill bomb them on 12-16-98? The Clinton admin chose to deal with Iraq and terrorism one way and the Bush admin chose a more aggressive solution towards both after 9-11. The reason for the invasion was to contain the threat that Iraq posed to the US. WMD's in the hand of Saddam according to our leaders both Democrats and Republicans was a threat to our safety. The reason Bush invaded Iraq was to neutralize the threat of Saddam using WMD's or giving WMD's to terrorist or giving him any more time to develop them. Had we not invaded Iraq and WMD's were used against the US. You would be crying that Bush did not do enough...

The quotes don't prove Iraq was a threat. The quotes prove the politicians and their speech writers were trying to make you believe Iraq was a threat. And again, Saudi millionaire sponsorship of terrorist activities(Al-Queda) far outstrips anything Iraq has contributed. For that matter, The suburban white teenagers buying heroin probably have contributed more to Al Queda than Saddam Hussein. The ironic part is that most of their parents are probably Republicans.

Neutralize the threat of Saddam? He was no real threat by then. He was old, and Iraq was a relatively stable secular place compared to saudi arabia and Jordan and Kuwait. Iraqis had attempted to assasinate his sons several times, and it was pretty clear they didn't have to inherit any dictatorial power.



Bush is in a psychosis-like state regarding our prospects. It is hard to be confident when you acknowledge facts, therefore it is better to avoid reality.

What the Iraq operation is a type of Aztec Ritual. A blood sacrifice engaged by Bush. Of course the System is sophisticated enough for him to avoid getting too close. But it appeals to all the sentiments built up watching WWII movies as a child of the 1950s. A superstitious ritual to make the rains come. Only the rains are oil and a strong dollar.

The masses don't need to gather at a temple to watch him carve out hearts on an altar. It is about distributed processing. the hearts are shot out in Iraq, the images captured and broadcast back home with color commentary. There are rock concerts and parades and televangelists.

A few decades of suburban sprawl maybe made it look like Globalism worked for us. And these Aztec Blood Sacrifices will keep that rolling in the superstitious minds of prevalent economic thought.

[Stephen Eisel]

The quotes don't prove Iraq was a threat. The quotes prove the politicians and their speech writers were trying to make you believe Iraq was a threat. And again, Saudi millionaire sponsorship of terrorist activities(Al-Queda) far outstrips anything Iraq has contributed. For that matter, The suburban white teenagers buying heroin probably have contributed more to Al Queda than Saddam Hussein. The ironic part is that most of their parents are probably Republicans.

Neutralize the threat of Saddam? He was no real threat by then. He was old, and Iraq was a relatively stable secular place compared to saudi arabia and Jordan and Kuwait. Iraqis had attempted to assasinate his sons several times, and it was pretty clear they didn't have to inherit any dictatorial power.

LOL! It proves that our government, Dems and Repubs, both believed that Iraq was a threat to the US. Again, why did Bill Clinton Bomb Iraq on 12-16-98, if Iraq was not a threat to the US? If Iraq was not a threat to the US then why did Bill Clinton draw up an invasion plan for Iraq? Why did the UN draw up so many different resolution against Iraq, if Iraq was not a threat to the world? Before the US lead invasion, it is probable that most of the chemical and biological weapons were loaded up into a (18 wheeler) truck and driven to Syria. Saddam supported terrorism and paid terrorist. We found 1.7 metric tons of enriched uranium after the invasion. That is frightening...