[paraclete]

My cousin has been in Iraq virtually non-stop deployed since OIF began. by his account they are not in any way demoralized. They see the good they have done and continue to do .

Wait and see Tom, it is early days yet, they are still flushed with their "success", but when there is nothing to shoot at, no visits to the flesh pots, they may have a different view, and of course, once they are all in the barracks they are an easier target. It might be like shooting fish in a barrel. I don't wish it on them but having them on base isn't a great strategic idea when you have an enemy who specialises in truck bombs. Remember Beriut. If the US is lucky all the muslim jihadists will now switch to defending Afghanistan and exit Iraq

I don't see you can say there is a victory. I actually see it as a defeat for democracy. Iraq got democracy at the point of a gun, the same way it got autocracy. All it did was swap one dictator for another. All the US really changed was the allegiance from Russia to the US and it remains to be seen if you actually achieved that.

The US also placed a sword at Iran's throat and strangely enough you wonder why they want nuclear weapons. With a buildup of US troops in Afghanistan I would think Iran would begin to see itself surrounded

[tomder55]

Many democracies are beggoten by the point of a gun and many people have been liberated from tyranny at the point of a gun.

Yes the fate of the Iraqi's is largely in their hands now as it should be . We have already negotiated our departure. Until then we are still in a theater of operations under terms of an agreement with the duly elected ,democratic and legitimate government of the state .

[zippit]

I didn't see anyone MAKING the iagi people vote? These people were happy to have a say in they're government remember the purple fingers that was at the point of a gun?wrong
You wait and see sir
When irag becomes stable and productive and its people productive and have good lives the iranian people are going to look over and say you know what were tired of this crap we want to live like that,than we will have our victory

[tomder55]

I think that dynamic is already being manifest in the protests in Iran over the fradulent elections that re-elected the Mahdi-hatter Ahmamadjihad. What many people do not realize is that many of the people in Iran are more influenced by the Shia clerics on the Iraqi side of the border like Sistani, than the gang of delusional Ayatollahs awaiting the return of the 12th Mahdi .

When I was in Tehran my impression was that at least the youths I met were freedom loving people. Now they see Iraqi's beginning to realize their dreams and say "when's our turn ?"

If one doesn't believe that then I'd just have to aske them why were so many of the protest banners written in English ?

[ETWolverine]

Do you really think there are winners in Iraq,

Yes. The Iraqi people, who now have higher employment, better jobs, more income, better lifestyles, and have gotten rid of a tyranical government that oppressed them.

that the US will leave Iraq any less corrupt than it was when they invaded.

No. I think ALL Middle Eastern governments are corrupt. And I include Israel in that as well, despite my support for Israel. But our goal wasn't to stop corruption. Our goal was to topple a tyrannical regime. We accomplished that goal AND through the troop surge, we brought a relative cease-fire to the country. There are incidents of violence there still, but there is relative peace insofar as the regular Iraqi on the street can go about his normal life now. THAT is a victory.

What victory has the US achieved, stirring up old hatreds and setting the stage for civil war.

A civil war that is NOT happening... BECAUSE OF US. That's a victory as well, even if you don't recognize it. The Iraqi Sunni are not killing the Iraqi Shia, and vice versa, because OF THE WORK OF THE US MILITARY. That's cause for celebration, not a reason to hang our head in defeat.

So now 150,000 US troops sit around and wait, I cannot think of anything more demoralising.

Having met literally HUNDREDS of troops now home from Iraq, I can tell you that the LAST thing our troops are is demoralized. They're actually pretty stoked about what they've accomplished there.

The US would be better served by putting them all on the next plane to Afghanistan or even better still the US.

I agree that we could use some more troops in Afghanistan. But they shouldn't be pulled from Iraq. We have enough troops available to pull them from elsewhere.

I'm not sure what good pulling them back to the US border would be

But they cannot go home to add the unemployment queues so they may as well take their unemployment benefit in Iraq.

Not sure what to make of this comment. But it doesn't make sense.

Elliot, the world doesn't call on the US, the US makes itself available, there is a big difference.

Ahhh... WRONG!! The UN is CONSTANTLY calling on the USA to take action (diplomatic or military) all over the world. Kuwait was just one example. Kosovo was another. They have been calling on US intervention in Darfur for years now.

The UN is a construct fully supported by the US as a means of exercising its political clout in the world. It gives them the excuse of being sanctioned while keeping others in check.

By that argument, the USA is the controlling body of the UN. What the USA says is what the UN does.

It didn't work that way with regard to Iraq, though. The USA said we should invade Iraq, the UN said no. Which means that the UN is not just a construct of the USA. It also means your argument is full of cr@p.

It was devised as a check on Soviet Russia in WWII because the US foresaw that after the war Russia would be expansionist.

BRILLIANT... take the party that you are trying to "check" and give it one-vote-veto power of the UN Security Council. If the purpose of the USA creating the UN was to put a check on the Soviets, why would we give the Soviets so much power within the UN? How did creating the UN create a check on Soviet power?

The point of the UN was NOT to be a check on the Soviets, but rather to create a network of nations that would act as go-betweens when the USA and the Soviet Union weren't talking to each other. The UN was designed as a NETWORKING AND MUTUAL DEFENCE ORGANIZATION in the same mold as the failed League of Nations. Nothing more.

As to turning to the US, we didn't need you in East Timor, in fact it was convenient for you that we were here. We didn't need you in the Solomon's intervention.

Yep. There are times that other countries have been happy to not call on the USA for intervention. And the USA has been happy to stay out of those situations. But the fact that there were times that you didn't call on us doesn't eliminate the majority of times when you did.

The fact is the rest of the world is willing and able to take action if you will stand back and stop antagonising states like Iran and Nth. Korea with your sabre rattling.

Interesting. Last year, the UK, France and Germany were all telling us that we need to be more involved in the multi-lateral communications with N Korea, China and Iran. Bush had specifically stayed OUT of the negotiations so as not to antagonize these foreign powers, and allowed other countries to lead negotiations for nuclear disarmament and divestation of the nuclear programs of N Korea and Iran, and China's usual sabre-rattling. These other countries were complaining about how they needed the USA to become more engaged.

Seems to me that you are forgetting very recent history.

Maybe Georgia needed a smack in the mouth, things aren't as clear cut as they might seem down there.

Possibly true. But Georgia's only sin was a failure to stop Chechen terrorists from using the Pankisi Gorge as a safe haven. Since the Chechen terrorists outnumber and outgun the Georgian military, it isn't because Georgia hasn't tried. In fact, they have on a number of occasions and have had their heads handed to them. And since the Russians have had no better success at getting rid of Chechen terrorists in Chechnya, they really have no cause to blame Georgia for it's failure to do what they have also been unable to do. So an invasion of Georgia was unvcalled for. The Russians should have been lending AID to Georgia instead of invading.

But the truth is that for all that Putin claimed that his reason for the invasion was to stop the Chechens in the Pankisi Gorge, he hasn't taken any action against them. Which leads me to believe that that was just an excuse. The REAL reason for the invasion had NOTHING to do with the movement of rebel terrorists in Georgia. It was Putin sending a warning to the USA... if you support the former Soviet countries against Russia, especially by giving them a missile defense system, we will take action against them.

So in essence, it wasn't an attack against Georgia per se. The invasion was an attack against the USA'a allies. Which means that RUSSIA was the one calling on the USA to take action.

And last week, Obama did. He agreed to disarm some of his nukes. He punked out.

But my point is that the USA didn't just crash the party vis-à-vis Georgia, it was invited.

In Afghanistan, we are all helping in what is really a US war, Al Qaeda didn't attack us but we all see that this sort of thing cannot be allowed. This is perhaps the one action in recent times that can be justified.

And we thank you for your participation and for standing with us.

I think it is good you stood back when Israel punished Gaza, if you hadn't it would have escalated, that is more that politics in the US was in transition rather than good judgment

And yet the UN constantly calls for the USA to take diplomatic action to slap down Israel, either with sanctions or by eliminating aid. They call on the USA to FORCE Israel into concessions that are bad for its security. Sometimes the USA listens, sometimes not. But the point is that with regard to Israel, the UN constantly calls on the USA to be it's "enforcer". Which just adds to my point that the world constantly calls on the USA to be its policeman.

YOU may not want that. I certainly don't want it. But nevertheless, that is what happens.

Elliot

[excon]

Yes. The Iraqi people, who now have higher employment, better jobs, more income, better lifestyles, and have gotten rid of a tyranical government that oppressed them.

Hello again, El:

Tyranical government who oppressed them?? What the hell are you talking about?? What about OUR occupying force? You don't think occupiers are oppressive?? You really don't you, do you??

What about the 600,000 or so DEAD Iraqi's?? Are they better off??

You've gone off the deep end.

excon

[zippit]

I don't see how the troops who are widely accepted and appreciated by the iraqi people can be likend to a tyrannical dictator?

600,000 dead civilians can you back that up?

[excon]

I dont see how the troops who are widely accepted and appreciated by the iraqi people can be likend to a tyrannical dictator?

600,000 dead civilians can you back that up?

Hello again, z:

If they're so widely accepted and appreciated, why can't they come home?? The answer is, that there's PLENTY of Iraqi's who DON'T appreciate them, and want to kill them because they occupy their country.

I don't know about you, and I couldn't care what the reason might be. However, if ANY country is occupying MINE, I'm going to drive 'em out with everything I have. You wouldn't??

600,000 dead Iraqi's?? No. I can't back it up. Would it make you feel better if it was only say, 250,000? How about 100,000?

excon

[zippit]

It would make me feel better if you would accept the fact that any and all gains in iaq,well help us in dealing with iran.and iran is the bigger picture they are the threat

[excon]

it would make me feel better if you would accept the fact that any and all gains in iaq,well help us in dealing with iran.and iran is the bigger picture they are the threat

Hello again, z:

You're a nice person, but I'm not here to make you feel better.

I agree. Iran is the problem... Then why did we take out Iran's biggest enemy?? It actually makes no sense on its face. The war was a disaster from the beginning. It did us NO GOOD!! In fact, it did us BAD!

Or am I missing something here?? What GOOD did it do us??

excon

[zippit]

I think that dynamic is already being manifest in the protests in Iran over the fradulent elections that re-elected the Mahdi-hatter Ahmamadjihad. What many people do not realize is that many of the people in Iran are more influenced by the Shia clerics on the Iraqi side of the border like Sistani, than the gang of delusional Ayatollahs awaiting the return of the 12th Mahdi .


?

This is what we are trying to do make the iranian people stand up for themselves

[zippit]

Oh thank you and you are a nice person as well

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, El:

Tyranical government who oppressed them?? What the hell are you talking about?? What about OUR occupying force? You don't think occupiers are oppressive?? You really don't you, do you??

No, not all "occupiers" are oppressive. Especially when the "occupiers" just got rid of the guy who killed 2 million of your people with gas and jailed, raped and tortured (the REAL kind of torture) a few million more. Occupier does not necessarily mean oppressor.

Or do you believe that the Israeli "occupiers" in the West Bank and Gaza were "oppressing" the Arabs, and that this is what led to the Intafada? How were the Palestinians being oppressed? By being given schools, hospitals, roads, electricity, water, and homes to live in?

Not everyone who occupies a piece of land is an oppressor, excon. You should know better than that.

What about the 600,000 or so DEAD Iraqi's?? Are they better off??

No. But I'll bet their families are. Those deaths are unfortunate. But they do not define the American occupation of Iraq.

You've gone off the deep end.

Excon

And you passed the deep end long ago. Your hatred of Bush and "his war" has so blinded you to what has been accomplished in Iraq.

I can lead you to water, but I can't make you drink.

Elliot

[excon]

I agree. Iran is the problem.... Then why did we take out Iran's biggest enemy????? It actually makes no sense on its face. The war was a disaster from the beginning. It did us NO GOOD!!!!!!!! In fact, it did us BAD!

Or am I missing something here??? What GOOD did it do us?????

Hello again, El:

I see that you think we did a marvelous thing for the Iraqi people... But, I didn't know that it was our job to save them, and then rebuild their nation... I didn't know that conservatives were so compassionate about the plight of the worlds downtrodden people. I didn't know you were such do gooder. In fact, if I didn't know better, your crap is sounding awfully liberal!

But, I want to know what the dufus's folly in Iraq did for US. That would be you and me, and our children... What did it do to the 4,000 dead American soldiers, and the countless 1,000's who have been maimed? Go ahead. Tell me how THEY benefited?

excon

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, El:

I see that you think we did a marvelous thing for the Iraqi people... But, I didn't know that it was our job to save them, and then rebuild their nation... I didn't know that conservatives were so compassionate about the plight of the worlds downtrodden people. I didn't know you were such do gooder. In fact, if I didn't know better, your crap is sounding awfully liberal!

Ahhh, excon. You've never understood conservatism. Conservatism... TRUE conservatism, is actually more compassionate than liberalism ever was. Liberals take money from other people who are rich and give it to the poor in the form of welfare. Conservatives give of their OWN MONEY to help the poor via charity. Conservatism ALWAYS puts it's money where its mouth is. And keep in mind, we're the party that eliminated slavery.

Keep in mind this term: COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATISM

But, I want to know what the dufus's folly in Iraq did for US. That would be you and me, and our children... What did it do to the 4,000 dead American soldiers, and the countless 1,000's who have been maimed? Go ahead. Tell me how THEY benefited?

Excon

First of all, it seems to me that for 8 years or so, all the Islamic terrorists of the world were concentrated in one place instead of being all over the world. Every terrorist in Iraq (and there were LOTS of them) was one that wasn't able to attack someone elsewhere... like on Main Street, USA. And every terrorist captured or killed in Iraq is one that is not available today to attack Man Street, USA.

But of course, you were unable to answer my prior point, so you changed the argument again. You tried to argue that the war in Iraq was a FAILURE. When I pointed out how it was not a failure, you changed your argument to try to say that the USA got nothing out of it. That's a completely different point. One that is also demonstrably wrong, but different from what you said before. You've been doing that a lot lately.

Elliot

[excon]

First of all, it seems to me that for 8 years or so, all the Islamic terrorists of the world were concentrated in one place instead of being all over the world.

Hello again, El:

I see. So we started the war because we're such wonderful people, and so that we could concentrate the terrorists all in one place. Is that the story you're sticking to today? And what, exactly did concentrating them into one area accomplish?

Besides, I don't think we concentrated enough of them in Iraq, either. There were still a few bombings in the world, no?

excon

[Skell]

First of all, it seems to me that for 8 years or so, all the Islamic terrorists of the world were concentrated in one place instead of being all over the world. Every terrorist in Iraq (and there were LOTS of them) was one that wasn't able to attack someone elsewhere... like on Main Street, USA. And every terrorist captured or killed in Iraq is one that is not available today to attack Man Street, USA.

Elliot

That's the first time I've heard that excuse for the Iraq war used. I think you should get out of banking and into politics. With spin doctoring like that you obviously missed your calling in life. ;)

[tomder55]

You never heard President Bush say [paraphrase] 'we have to fight them there so we don't have to fight them here ?'

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, El:

I see. So we started the war because we're such wonderful people, and so that we could concentrate the terrorists all in one place.

Actually, we started the war for the reasons that George Bush gave the UN. Namely:

1)Saddam's mon-compliance with 17sepparate UNSC resolutions.
2)Attempted development of WMDs.
3)Refusal to prove the disarmament of existing WMDs.
4)Repression of the Iraqi people.
5)Violations of human rights
6)Support for international terrorism, including sheltering of international terrorists, establishment of terrorist training camps, and financial support of terrorism.
7)Refusal to account for Gulf War POWs and MIAs.
8)Refusal to return stolen Kuwaiti property, primarily military equipment.
9)Efforts to circumvent economic sanctions and impede the oil-for-food program.

Concentrating the terrorists in one place was just a bonus.

Is that the story you're sticking to today? And what, exactly did concentrating them into one area accomplish?

The creation of a target-rich environment.

Besides, I don't think we concentrated enough of them in Iraq, either. There were still a few bombings in the world, no?

Excon

Yep. Nothing is 100% perfect. But it was better than it had been for the 40+ years prior... fewer attacks world-wide, more dead terrorists in Iraq. It's the best that could be hoped for in military terms.

Unless, of course, what you are hoping for is that terrorists continue to attack the USA at the rate of 1-2 attacks per year (the average for the prior 40 years). If that is your desire, then yes, the Iraq war was a complete failure.

But since most of us are trying to AVOID being attacked, and since most of us see FEWER attacks and fewer terrorists left alive to perform attacks as a GOOD THING, I think I'll chalk up this one as a "win".

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

That's the first time I've heard that excuse for the Iraq war used. I think you should get out of banking and into politics. With spin doctoring like that you obviously missed your calling in life. ;)

That's because you misunderstand me. That wasn't the REASON for the war. The reasons for the war were delineated by Bush before the war took place.

1)Non-compliance with 17sepparate UNSC resolutions.
2)Attempted development of WMDs.
3)Refusal to prove the disarmament of existing WMDs.
4)Repression of the Iraqi people.
5)Violations of human rights
6)Support for international terrorism, including sheltering of international terrorists, establishment of terrorist training camps, and financial support of terrorism.
7)Refusal to account for Gulf War POWs and MIAs.
8)Refusal to return stolen Kuwaiti property, primarily military equipment.
9)Efforts to circumvent economic sanctions and impede the oil-for-food program

The concentration of terrorists in one place was simply an effect of the war... and a bonus.

Excon asked what the EFFECT of the war was... what did the war accomplish. He did not ask why we went to war. You and he are both confused between the CAUSES of the war and the EFFECTS of the war.

Hope this makes you a bit less confused.

Elliot