The war in Iraq, Justified? Options

[Cpt. Snot Rocket]

Great post Shaz! I mostly agree with Cheney's thughts. It's clear that we did not have much support in removing Saddam at that time. Still don't from much of that part of the world. However, after 9/11, USS Cole and Embassy bombings the sentiment changed. The terrorist network, strength, money and support were under valued.

I strongly disagree with Pez that Saddam was "no" threat to the US. I think there is reasonable evidence to show he was actively supporting terrorist groups that targeted the US and Israel. 1 nuclear device set off in NY and....well enough said. We can take no chances with sworn dictator enemies.

[Cpt. Snot Rocket]

I know this is a bit long...but it is an in-depth report by an independent studdy group on Iraq. Well worth the read.



August 10, 2007The Major Diplomatic & Strategic Evolution in IraqU.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker met Aug. 6 with Iranian Ambassador to Iraq Hassan Kazemi Qomi and Iraqi National Security Adviser Muwaffaq al-Rubaie. Separately, a committee of Iranian, Iraqi and U.S. officials held its first meeting on Iraqi security, following up on an agreement reached at a July ambassadorial-level meeting.

The U.S. team was headed by Marcie Ries, counselor for political and military affairs at the embassy in Baghdad. Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, who handles Iraq for the Iranian Foreign Ministry, led the Iranian team. A U.S. Embassy spokesman described the talks as "frank and serious," saying they "focused, as agreed, on security problems in Iraq." Generally, "frank and serious" means nasty, though they probably did get down to the heart of the matter. The participants agreed to hold a second meeting, which means this one didn't blow up.

Longtime Stratfor readers will recall that we have been tracing these Iranian-American talks from the back-channel negotiations to the high-level publicly announced talks, and now to this working group on security. A multilateral regional meeting on Iraq's future was held March 10 in Baghdad, followed by a regional meeting May 4 in Egypt. Then there were ambassadorial-level meetings in Baghdad on May 28 and July 24. Now, not quite two weeks later, the three sides have met again.

That the discussions were frank and serious shouldn't surprise anyone. That they continue in spite of obvious deep tensions between the parties is, in our view, extremely significant. The prior ambassadorial talk lasted about seven hours. The Aug. 6 working group session lasted about four hours. These are not simply courtesy calls. The parties are spending a great deal of time talking about something.

This is not some sort of public relations stunt either. First, neither Washington nor Tehran would bother to help the other's public image. Second, neither side's public image is much helped by these talks anyway. This is the "Great Satan" talking to one-half of what is left of the "Axis of Evil." If ever there were two countries that have reason not to let the world know they are meeting, it is these two. Yet, they are meeting, and they have made the fact public.

The U.S. media have not ignored these meetings, but they have not treated them as what they actually are-an extraordinary diplomatic and strategic evolution in Iraq. Part of the reason is that the media take their cues from the administration about diplomatic processes. If the administration makes a big deal out of the visit of the Icelandic fisheries minister to Washington, the media will treat it as such. If the administration treats multilevel meetings between Iran and the United States on the future of Iraq in a low-key way, then low-key it is. The same is true for the Iranians, whose media are more directly managed. Iran does not want to make a big deal out of these meetings, and therefore they are not portrayed as significant.

It is understandable that neither Washington nor Tehran would want to draw undue attention to the talks. The people of each country view the other with intense hostility. We are reminded of the political problems faced by Chinese Premier Chou En-lai and U.S. President Richard Nixon when their diplomatic opening became public. The announcement of Nixon's visit to China was psychologically stunning in the United States; it was less so in China only because the Chinese controlled the emphasis placed on the announcement. Both sides had to explain to their publics why they were talking to the mad dogs.

In the end, contrary to conventional wisdom, perception is not reality. The fact that the Americans and the Iranians are downplaying the talks, and that newspapers are not printing banner headlines about them, does not mean the meetings are not vitally important. It simply means that the conventional wisdom, guided by the lack of official exuberance, doesn't know what to make of these talks.

There are three major powers with intense interest in the future of Iraq: the United States, Iran and Saudi Arabia. The United States, having toppled Saddam Hussein, has completely mismanaged the war. Nevertheless, a unilateral withdrawal would create an unacceptable situation in which Iran, possibly competing with Turkey in the North, would become the dominant military power in the region and would be in a position to impose itself at least on southern Iraq-and potentially all of it. Certainly there would be resistance, but Iran has a large military (even if it is poorly equipped), giving it a decided advantage in controlling a country such as Iraq.

In addition, Iran is not nearly as casualty-averse as the United States. Iran fought a war with Iraq in the 1980s that cost it about a million casualties. The longtime Iranian fear has been that the United States will somehow create a pro-American regime in Baghdad, rearm the Iraqis and thus pose for Iran round two of what was its national nightmare. It is no accident that the day before these meetings, U.S. sources speculated about the possible return of the Iraqi air force to the Iraqis. Washington was playing on Tehran's worst nightmare.

Saudi Arabia's worst nightmare would be watching Iran become the dominant power in Iraq or southern Iraq. It cannot defend itself against Iran, nor does it want to be defended by U.S. troops on Saudi soil. The Saudis want Iraq as a buffer zone between Iran and their oil fields. They opposed the original invasion, fearing just this outcome, but now that the invasion has taken place, they don't want Iran as the ultimate victor. The Saudis, therefore, are playing a complex game, both supporting Sunni co-religionists and criticizing the American presence as an occupation-yet urgently wanting U.S. troops to remain.

The United States wants to withdraw, though it doesn't see a way out because an outright unilateral withdrawal would set the stage for Iranian domination. At the same time, the United States must have an endgame-something the next U.S. president will have to deal with.

The Iranians no longer believe the United States is capable of creating a stable, anti-Iranian, pro-American government in Baghdad. Instead, they are terrified the United States will spoil their plans to consolidate influence within Iraq. So, while they are doing everything they can to destabilize the regime, they are negotiating with Washington. The report that three-quarters of U.S. casualties in recent weeks were caused by "rogue" Shiite militia sounds plausible. The United States has reached a level of understanding with some nonjihadist Sunni insurgent groups, many of them Baathist. The Iranians do not want to see this spread-at least not unless the United States first deals with Tehran. The jihadists, calling themselves al Qaeda in Iraq, do not want this either, and so they have carried out a wave of assassinations of those Sunnis who have aligned with the United States, and they have killed four key aides to Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, a key Shiite figure.

If this sounds complicated, it is. The United States is fighting Sunnis and Shia, making peace with some Sunnis and encouraging some Shia to split off-all the time waging an offensive against most everyone. The Iranians support many, but not all, of the Shiite groups in Iraq. In fact, many of the Iraqi Shia have grown quite wary of the Iranians. And for their part, the Saudis are condemning the Americans while hoping they stay-and supporting Sunnis who might or might not be fighting the Americans.

The situation not only is totally out of hand, but the chance that anyone will come out of it with what they really want is slim. The United States probably will not get a pro-American government and the Iranians probably will not get to impose their will on all or part of Iraq. The Saudis, meanwhile, are feeling themselves being sucked into the Sunni quagmire.

This situation is one of the factors driving the talks.

By no means out of any friendliness, a mutual need is emerging. No one is in control of the situation. No one is likely to get control of the situation in any long-term serious way. It is in the interests of the United States, Iran and Saudi Arabia that the Iraq situation stabilize, simply because they cannot predict the outcome-and the worst-case scenario for each is too frightening to contemplate.

None of the three powers can bring the situation under control. Even by working together, the three will be unable to completely stabilize Iraq and end the violence. But by working together they can increase security to the point that none of their nightmare scenarios comes true. In return, the United States will have to do without a pro-American government in Baghdad and the Iranians will have to forgo having an Iraqi satellite.

Hence, we see a four-hour meeting of Iranian and U.S. security experts on stabilizing the situation in Iraq. Given the little good will between the two countries, defining roles and missions in a stabilization program will require frank and serious talks indeed. Ultimately, however, there is sufficient convergence of interests that holding these talks makes sense.

The missions are clear. The Iranian task will be to suppress the Shiite militias that are unwilling to abide by an agreement-or any that oppose Iranian domination. Their intelligence in this area is superb and their intelligence and special operations teams have little compunction as to how they act. The Saudi mission will be to underwrite the cost of Sunni acceptance of a political compromise, as well as a Sunni war against the jihadists. Saudi intelligence in this area is pretty good and, while the Saudis do have compunctions, they will gladly give the intelligence to the Americans to work out the problem. The U.S. role will be to impose a government in Baghdad that meets Iran's basic requirements, and to use its forces to grind down the major insurgent and militia groups. This will be a cooperative effort-meaning whacking Saudi and Iranian friends will be off the table.

No one power can resolve the security crisis in Iraq-as four years of U.S. efforts there clearly demonstrate. But if the United States and Iran, plus Saudi Arabia, work together-with no one providing cover for or supplies to targeted groups-the situation can be brought under what passes for reasonable control in Iraq. More important for the three powers, the United States could draw down its troops to minimal levels much more quickly than is currently being discussed, the Iranians would have a neutral, nonaggressive Iraq on their western border and the Saudis would have a buffer zone from the Iranians. The buffer zone is the key, because what happens in the buffer zone stays in the buffer zone.

The talks in Baghdad are about determining whether there is a way for the United States and Iran to achieve their new mutual goal. The question is whether their fear of the worst-case scenario outweighs their distrust of each other. Then there is the matter of agreeing on the details-determining the nature of the government in Baghdad, which groups to protect and which to target, how to deal with intelligence sharing and so on.

These talks can fail in any number of ways. More and more, however, the United States and Iran are unable to tolerate their failure. The tremendous complexity of the situation has precluded either side from achieving a successful outcome. They now have to craft the minimal level of failure they can mutually accept.

These talks not only are enormously important but they also are, in some ways, more important than the daily reports on combat and terrorism. If this war ends, it will end because of negotiations like these.

Stratfor is a private intelligence company delivering in-depth analysis, assessments and forecasts on global geopolitical, economic, security and public policy issues. A variety of subscription-based access, free intelligence reports and confidential consulting are available for individuals and corporations.

[pezking]

Okay, yeah... there are a lot of "what if" scenarios with Saddam. But you could say that about Iran, China, North Korea... hell, even Venezuela since Chavez has pretty much declared war on the US in so many words. When you get into smuggling a dirty nuke into NYC or something, it could be anyone. Right now, Russia bothers me and they don't seem to be an ally anymore, how's that for a "what if" scenario? Russia could blow up a nuke and they would be one of the last people we'd be thinking did it.... we'd all be thinking it was some extremist muslim group.

[Axel]

I just read a book call Making A Killing by Captain James Ashcroft about the whole Iraq situation and he made some interesting observations. First off, back in the day, all oil was traded with US dollars; however, some countries have switched over to the Euro, inlcuding yours truly, Iraq. But guess what, after we invaded Iraq, they mysteriously started trading oil with the US dollar again. Coincidence? I think not. Oil being traded in US dollars helps keep our economy rolling and preventing a collapse even as our textile mills and furniture factories close by the day. If we're looking for WMDs, why not go to North Korea? If we're stopping genocide, why not go to Rwanada or Darfur? As for why we are in this awful situation, no one will really knows except Dubya and the good Lord himself.

God Bless America and our troops.

[blk96gt]

I just read a book call Making A Killing by Captain James Ashcroft about the whole Iraq situation and he made some interesting observations. First off, back in the day, all oil was traded with US dollars; however, some countries have switched over to the Euro, inlcuding yours truly, Iraq. But guess what, after we invaded Iraq, they mysteriously started trading oil with the US dollar again. Coincidence? I think not. Oil being traded in US dollars helps keep our economy rolling and preventing a collapse even as our textile mills and furniture factories close by the day. If we're looking for WMDs, why not go to North Korea? If we're stopping genocide, why not go to Rwanada or Darfur? As for why we are in this awful situation, no one will really knows except Dubya and the good Lord himself.

God Bless America and our troops.

You do know that we get very little of our oil from Iraq right? Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, and Venezuela are the top four in that order for crude oil.

[Rommel]

[Capt. Andtennille]

LOL.



No War = No Freedom. The islomofascists have been attacking EVERYONE for centuries. George Bush finally had enough when they struck the Twin Towers. Something like 93% of the world's conflicts involve Muslims, but Rommel (sitting in Norway of all places) blames George Bush. When Norway gets into trouble I'll be sure to call my congressman and tell them to stay out of it.

[*Triggahappy13*]

so excuse me for only reading the first couple posts but I had to say this...In my history class we were watching a video about this area and there was a part specifically about suicide bombers. They actually showed a "sign-up" where thousands of people came to apply for a sucide bombing role? (I found that kinda funny) But then they were talking with one of the head Immam's (shit, spell check) or basically one of the head priest's in more simple terms, But they brought up the whole "are these people actually going to with Allah and having all the joys and so on". But he said no, he said that these people are going to suffer in the deepest parts of hell. I found that quite suprising.

I don't think they really want freedom. They smile and wave to the troops, then burn our flags and set up roadside bombs behind their backs.

what was that about the media showing us what they want us to see...

[UNDEAD 1]

through out history this region was always controlled by whoever controlled the middle east as a whole. hitler even had ties with iraq in ww2 and had nothing to do with oil.



if they followed the money and all ties lead to iraq ,then they would partly be responsible for 9/11.

[Hellfighter]

LOL.



No War = No Freedom. The islomofascists have been attacking EVERYONE for centuries. George Bush finally had enough when they struck the Twin Towers. Something like 93% of the world's conflicts involve Muslims, but Rommel (sitting in Norway of all places) blames George Bush. When Norway gets into trouble I'll be sure to call my congressman and tell them to stay out of it.

Where do we start with a post like this;
You write as if the Western/euro powers have been pacifist goody two-shoes influences in the past millenium.... read some real history books lately?
Who doesn't blame George Bush- only 30% of Americans support George Bush's personal/vendtta/crusade war- read your current affairs lately? Your smug snipe at Rommel's place of birth only cheapens your uninformed character further - If you knew what his noble profession is and things that he's done in real life then you'd feel like an ant in his presence.
By the way smart-guy your BUSH buddy, the CIA, the UN and just about everyone with half a brain will gladly tell you the reason to go to war was not about revenge/retaliation strike for the twin towers... it was about WMD WMD WMD......and getting Saddam out of power to be replaced by what the neo-cons delusionally thought would be an easy transfer of power to a puppet/quasi democratic Iraqi government.
Who precisely is Norway going to get in trouble with? They don't have a maverick 'leader' spending ludicrous amounts of money on an unwinnable war [as long as troop levels are insufficient] and sending of its youngsters and family parents on 3 or 4 tours against a collection of factions of enemies that will always have limitless numbers of cannon fodder.
Sure- go call your neo-con congressman while you can-he'll likely be gone in a couple of years when the majority of Americans make the right call to end the quagmire of the current state of affairs.
Seeing as you're so concerned about stopping conflicts, why don't you sign-up for service if you're of age.
Too many conservative pro-Bush chicken-hawks just love the idea of fighting wars they get to sit back, watch and play no direct role in. Oblivious to the real hurt and suffering going on for a cause that's going nowhere fast.
There are those who are saying we can't leave. One day Iraq will be on its own and vultures set to tear it apart from inside and outside its borders are waiting in the wings. It's ignorant to think al quaeda would take over Iraq-sure they can be the mindless destructive shit disturbers there but if you think they'd be bold enough to assume they can take control of a nation like they do the rural iraqi villages they control once in a while, I think you're nuts. Lots of Iraqis want payback on any al queda they can get there hands on - You think Iran would sit back and let al quaeda take over- Do you see how Iraqi militias and insurgents torture ach other to death- even al quaeda operatives would piss their pants if they knew they'd get taken prisoner by them.
The way I look at it is, even if Iraqis had their own revolution that toppled Saddam we'd see a huge bloodletting in the population as factions wrestled for control. And you tell me- do you believe the US and its coalition would dare move into such a chaos to patrol and try and seperate the factions. I would hope this current surge works, but my feeling is let the Iraqis meddle out their own affairs... fight the real enemy that Bush's escapade has motivated; keep the troops pulverising pee-on al quaeda operatives along the Syrian border - the source of the suicide bombers - al aquaeda aren't street fighters-they're cowardly silent killers-get them in the open deserts before they mingle into general populations!!!! And don't forget about Afghanistan.

In spite of Bush's desperate propoganda machine to spin the Iraq war as ultimately what will crush al quaeda if victory is even possible there, get real -It's not Iraq where the next world-stage attack will come from or be directed from. Some will venture to say 'but we haven't been attacked since 9-11'. Well be realistic; worldwide devastating al aquaeda attacks have occurred and they are pushing their influence in Arab states, S.E Asia, and N/E Africa and how many homegrown cells are already in many Western nations planning, how many near-complete attack attempts have we foiled in all these places too? Al quaeda is resurging back to full capability; we had them on the ropes with their faces smashed to a pulp before Bush prodded by the neo-con baffoons rediverted his attention into Iraq thinking they were going to 'save the world' with the new brand of enforced democracy strategy.

Finally in retrospect its idiotic that neo-cons continue bashing Clinton for apparently doing little against Bin Laden when in fact he made some efforts at least. What- tell me you Bush fans- what did Bush do before 9-11 when he took over? He dismissed reports 'BinLaden ready to fly planes into buildings' -ie, no increased airport security at that time NOR any efforts to seek out Bin Laden any more than Clinton did- in fact I say he did much less - just like all the repubs were whining about the Monica affair instead of using their supposedly great insight to persuade Clnton to take out Al queada at all costs.

I just wonder ultimately, how many 'terrorist' local drug dealing street-gangs here in N.America could we take out and how many poor rural citizens in southern states we could bring up to a decent lifestyle with the large portion of 1 trillion dollars invested in the Iraq War.





This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 08/15/07 11:31am

[Capt. Andtennille]

LOL.



No War = No Freedom. The islomofascists have been attacking EVERYONE for centuries. George Bush finally had enough when they struck the Twin Towers. Something like 93% of the world's conflicts involve Muslims, but Rommel (sitting in Norway of all places) blames George Bush. When Norway gets into trouble I'll be sure to call my congressman and tell them to stay out of it.

Where do we start with a post like this;
You write as if the Western/euro powers have been pacifist goody two-shoes influences in the past millenium.... read some real history books lately?
Who doesn't blame George Bush- only 30% of Americans support George Bush's personal/vendtta/crusade war- read your current affairs lately? Your smug snipe at Rommel's place of birth only cheapens your uninformed character further - If you knew what his noble profession is and things that he's done in real life then you'd feel like an ant in his presence.
By the way smart-guy your BUSH buddy, the CIA, the UN and just about everyone with half a brain will gladly tell you the reason to go to war was not about revenge/retaliation strike for the twin towers... it was about WMD WMD WMD......and getting Saddam out of power to be replaced by what the neo-cons delusionally thought would be an easy transfer of power to a puppet/quasi democratic Iraqi government.
Who precisely is Norway going to get in trouble with? They don't have a maverick 'leader' spending ludicrous amounts of money on an unwinnable war [as long as troop levels are insufficient] and sending of its youngsters and family parents on 3 or 4 tours against a collection of factions of enemies that will always have limitless numbers of cannon fodder.
Sure- go call your neo-con congressman while you can-he'll likely be gone in a couple of years when the majority of Americans make the right call to end the quagmire of the current state of affairs.
Seeing as you're so concerned about stopping conflicts, why don't you sign-up for service if you're of age.
Too many conservative pro-Bush chicken-hawks just love the idea of fighting wars they get to sit back, watch and play no direct role in. Oblivious to the real hurt and suffering going on for a cause that's going nowhere fast.
There are those who are saying we can't leave. One day Iraq will be on its own and vultures set to tear it apart from inside and outside its borders are waiting in the wings. It's ignorant to think al quaeda would take over Iraq-sure they can be the mindless destructive shit disturbers there but if you think they'd be bold enough to assume they can take control of a nation like they do the rural iraqi villages they control once in a while, I think you're nuts. Lots of Iraqis want payback on any al queda they can get there hands on - You think Iran would sit back and let al quaeda take over- Do you see how Iraqi militias and insurgents torture ach other to death- even al quaeda operatives would piss their pants if they knew they'd get taken prisoner by them.
The way I look at it is, even if Iraqis had their own revolution that toppled Saddam we'd see a huge bloodletting in the population as factions wrestled for control. And you tell me- do you believe the US and its coalition would dare move into such a chaos to patrol and try and seperate the factions. I would hope this current surge works, but my feeling is let the Iraqis meddle out their own affairs... fight the real enemy that Bush's escapade has motivated; keep the troops pulverising pee-on al quaeda operatives along the Syrian border - the source of the suicide bombers !!!! And don't forget about Afghanistan.
It's not Iraq where the next world-stage attack will come from or be directed from. Some will venture to say 'but we haven't been attacked since 9-11'. Well be realistic; worldwide devastating al aquaeda attacks have occurred and they are pushing their influence in Arab tates, S.E Asia, and N/E Africa and how many homegrown cells are already in many Western nations planning, how many near-complete attack attempts have we foiled in all these places too? Al quaeda is resurging back to full capability; we had them on the ropes with their faces smashed to a pulp before Bush prodded by the neo-con baffoons rediverted his attention into Iraq thinking they were going to 'save the world' with the new brand of enforced democracy strategy.

Finally in retrospect its idiotic that neo-cons continue bashing Clinton for apparently doing little against Bin Laden when in fact he made some efforts at least. What- tell me you Bush fans- what did Bush do before 9-11 when he took over? He dismissed reports 'BinLaden ready to fly planes into buildings' -ie, no increased airport security at that time NOR any efforts to seek out Bin Laden any more than Clinton did- in fact I say he did much less - just like all the repubs were whining about the Monica affair instead of using their supposedly great insight to persuade Clnton to take out Al queada at all costs.

Blah Blah Blah

Rommell may have indeed have a noble pofession but he's the one who made the post with the anti-Bush graphic. No Fascism, Marxism, Communism = No War. IIRC there has never been a case where one democracy has declared war on another.



His post implies that the whole mess was started by Bush. You are making basically the same assertion. Bush should have known about it in the 10 months he was in office but Clinton gets a pass because he only had 8 years. Get real.



I'm well past the age where I can sign up for service, but If the position that you're espousing prevails I will be heavily involved fighting the islomofascists here at home. Right now I'm just happy we get to fight them there.



I have nothing against either of you personally, but I'm really sick of you guys from other countries telling us how to run ours while at the same time being enjoying the fruits of our success and safety we provide.



Another thing. I wouldn't feel like an ant in ANYONE's presence. If I met Rommel I may indeed be duly impressed by him as a man and by his accomplishments. That would in no way diminish my view of myself.

[Capt. Andtennille]

I just wonder what you North Americans feel about the war in Iraq.

Do you think it's right? (why/why not?)

This war is expensive for US. How much are you willing to sacrifice from a domestic perspective (money and casualties) to win.

Other strong opinions...?

I am just curious.......

Apparently I am now in the position to answer your questions directly:

Q: I just wonder what you North Americans feel about the war in Iraq.

A: Apparently we are divided. Some from Norway don't like it either.



Q: Do you think it's right? (why/why not?)

A: Again, we're divided, North Americans, Norwegians and all. Each have thier own reasons.



Q: This war is expensive for US. How much are you willing to sacrifice from a domestic perspective (money and casualties) to win.

A: Divided again. For some it not worth it at any cost, for others it is viewed as part of the fight for our ultimate survival.



Q: Other strong opinions...?

A: Nope, none. No one has really indicated they have an opinion one way or the other...



Capt. Andtennille

[Major.Pain]

I for one find it quite pleasant that we, as intelligent adults, can debate without personally attacking each other.

How refreshing it is that we can each have our own views and opinions that are just as respected as the other guy's.



-Pain

ps. Sarcasm? Don't know the meaning of the word.

[*Triggahappy13*]

LOL.



No War = No Freedom. The islomofascists have been attacking EVERYONE for centuries. George Bush finally had enough when they struck the Twin Towers. Something like 93% of the world's conflicts involve Muslims, but Rommel (sitting in Norway of all places) blames George Bush. When Norway gets into trouble I'll be sure to call my congressman and tell them to stay out of it.

Where do we start with a post like this;
You write as if the Western/euro powers have been pacifist goody two-shoes influences in the past millenium.... read some real history books lately?
Who doesn't blame George Bush- only 30% of Americans support George Bush's personal/vendtta/crusade war- read your current affairs lately? Your smug snipe at Rommel's place of birth only cheapens your uninformed character further - If you knew what his noble profession is and things that he's done in real life then you'd feel like an ant in his presence.
By the way smart-guy your BUSH buddy, the CIA, the UN and just about everyone with half a brain will gladly tell you the reason to go to war was not about revenge/retaliation strike for the twin towers... it was about WMD WMD WMD......and getting Saddam out of power to be replaced by what the neo-cons delusionally thought would be an easy transfer of power to a puppet/quasi democratic Iraqi government.
Who precisely is Norway going to get in trouble with? They don't have a maverick 'leader' spending ludicrous amounts of money on an unwinnable war [as long as troop levels are insufficient] and sending of its youngsters and family parents on 3 or 4 tours against a collection of factions of enemies that will always have limitless numbers of cannon fodder.
Sure- go call your neo-con congressman while you can-he'll likely be gone in a couple of years when the majority of Americans make the right call to end the quagmire of the current state of affairs.
Seeing as you're so concerned about stopping conflicts, why don't you sign-up for service if you're of age.
Too many conservative pro-Bush chicken-hawks just love the idea of fighting wars they get to sit back, watch and play no direct role in. Oblivious to the real hurt and suffering going on for a cause that's going nowhere fast.
There are those who are saying we can't leave. One day Iraq will be on its own and vultures set to tear it apart from inside and outside its borders are waiting in the wings. It's ignorant to think al quaeda would take over Iraq-sure they can be the mindless destructive shit disturbers there but if you think they'd be bold enough to assume they can take control of a nation like they do the rural iraqi villages they control once in a while, I think you're nuts. Lots of Iraqis want payback on any al queda they can get there hands on - You think Iran would sit back and let al quaeda take over- Do you see how Iraqi militias and insurgents torture ach other to death- even al quaeda operatives would piss their pants if they knew they'd get taken prisoner by them.
The way I look at it is, even if Iraqis had their own revolution that toppled Saddam we'd see a huge bloodletting in the population as factions wrestled for control. And you tell me- do you believe the US and its coalition would dare move into such a chaos to patrol and try and seperate the factions. I would hope this current surge works, but my feeling is let the Iraqis meddle out their own affairs... fight the real enemy that Bush's escapade has motivated; keep the troops pulverising pee-on al quaeda operatives along the Syrian border - the source of the suicide bombers !!!! And don't forget about Afghanistan.
It's not Iraq where the next world-stage attack will come from or be directed from. Some will venture to say 'but we haven't been attacked since 9-11'. Well be realistic; worldwide devastating al aquaeda attacks have occurred and they are pushing their influence in Arab tates, S.E Asia, and N/E Africa and how many homegrown cells are already in many Western nations planning, how many near-complete attack attempts have we foiled in all these places too? Al quaeda is resurging back to full capability; we had them on the ropes with their faces smashed to a pulp before Bush prodded by the neo-con baffoons rediverted his attention into Iraq thinking they were going to 'save the world' with the new brand of enforced democracy strategy.

Finally in retrospect its idiotic that neo-cons continue bashing Clinton for apparently doing little against Bin Laden when in fact he made some efforts at least. What- tell me you Bush fans- what did Bush do before 9-11 when he took over? He dismissed reports 'BinLaden ready to fly planes into buildings' -ie, no increased airport security at that time NOR any efforts to seek out Bin Laden any more than Clinton did- in fact I say he did much less - just like all the repubs were whining about the Monica affair instead of using their supposedly great insight to persuade Clnton to take out Al queada at all costs.

Blah Blah Blah

Rommell may have indeed have a noble pofession but he's the one who made the post with the anti-Bush graphic. No Fascism, Marxism, Communism = No War. IIRC there has never been a case where one democracy has declared war on another.



His post implies that the whole mess was started by Bush. You are making basically the same assertion. Bush should have known about it in the 10 months he was in office but Clinton gets a pass because he only had 8 years. Get real.



I'm well past the age where I can sign up for service, but If the position that you're espousing prevails I will be heavily involved fighting the islomofascists here at home. Right now I'm just happy we get to fight them there.



I have nothing against either of you personally, but I'm really sick of you guys from other countries telling us how to run ours while at the same time being enjoying the fruits of our success and safety we provide.



Another thing. I wouldn't feel like an ant in ANYONE's presence. If I met Rommel I may indeed be duly impressed by him as a man and by his accomplishments. That would in no way diminish my view of myself.

sorry i just wanted to make this post even longer

but people dont realize that communisim is the best form of government there is...and the human part is what messes it up. But with democracy now, I want a show a hands from people that know we ARE NOT a democracy...we are a republic and democracy is the closest thing to communisim besides communisim itself...i mean we arn't even spreading deomcracy around the world we are just saying it is because it sounds better and people might think back to Rome and how well a rublic worked for them dot dot dot

[Capt. Andtennille]

sorry i just wanted to make this post even longer

but people dont realize that communisim is the best form of government there is...and the human part is what messes it up. But with democracy now, I want a show a hands from people that know we ARE NOT a democracy...we are a republic and democracy is the closest thing to communisim besides communisim itself...i mean we arn't even spreading deomcracy around the world we are just saying it is because it sounds better and people might think back to Rome and how well a rublic worked for them dot dot dot

Absolutely correct. We are a constitutional republic, NOT a democracy. The intent of this was to protect the rights of smaller, less populated states and to keep the power in the hands of the states rather than the federal government. Each state gets representation in the House base on it's population and representation in the Senate is equeal for all state (2 senators each). Originally, the Senators were chosen by the state leglislatures rather than by a popular vote. We would probably be well served to go back to that method.