Not damned at all, we can get this on track now. We can't pull out as you state in point 1 above, if we do, point 2 above will certainly happen. We have to complete the job in Iraq to achive success in the terroisim issue. We should be able to tackle that problem better with "new eyes" on the matter now and better checks and balances to keep the new eyes and old eyes in perspective. It won't end soon and it won't be cheap. But we have to stay commited and implement new ideas with a means to an end, a win.
There is no magic solution, the war is lost. It is simply too late to do anything. The only thing possible is withdraw and try to salvage America's reputation and image through a reasonable future foreign policy. This war has caused enormous damage in form America's image and political cloud since it made it obvious that despite all the Aircraft carriers, Atomic weapons and Stealth bombers, a group of people with rifles can bring down the American military to it's knees. This is the same kind of defeat as Vietnam, the question will be how long does it take this time to repair the damage.
So how do you measure a win in Iraq in a best-case scenario? What I don't get is how doing anything in Iraq is somehow a magic solution to terrorism. To be honest, I don't think there's any less terrorism in the world today than the day the "war on terror" started. In fact, I would even argue there's actually more. If there was peace in civil peace in Iraq, who thinks there would be no (or even less) terrorism in the world? Why did we go to war in Iraq? Because Bush told everyone that Iraq was getting ready to attack the United States with his nuclear and biological arsenal. Okay, well that problem seems to be solved (since it never existed). I'm starting think that maybe the reason for going to war in Iraq (weapons of mass destruction) was a facade. Are we still looking for them? If so, how long are we going to look? If not, why are we still there? Maybe I'm an asshole, but it seems like I'm paying for other government's problems now (with my tax dollars). Maybe (just maybe) it was nothing more than excuse to get Saddam Hussein out of power simply because some people in our government just don't like him. I find it hard to believe that Bush (or anyone else) *really* felt he was a threat to US national security. Personally, I think the main reason we are still in Iraq is because of national pride. I don't anyone actually knows what a win in Iraq would even BE. There's no objective to be completed. Hell, our own president thinks we won the war 3 1/2 years ago. So why are we still there? Because Iraq is just as fucked up as when Saddam was in power and we look stupid. Unfortunately I don't think there's a way we can get out of Iraq without looking stupid, so instead we are going to have some amount of troops there for 10 or 20 years and pretend we are doing something.
Absolutly right, this is the worse "war" disaster since Vietnam. Thousands upon thousands of Iraqis dead and American soldiers getting killed all the time and for what? As you rightly pointed out the worlds largest military might cannot win over there, however well equipped they are. Best to admit defeat and bring them home, if not this will go on for years and years, which I firmly believe it will.
A win in Iraq would be: 1. Removal of a brutal and unstable dictator (nobody denies he was that). Goal accomplished. 2. Installation of a unified self-governing democratic government. Goal accomplished (people voted, govt installed). 3. Stability of Iraqi society. In progress but not accomplished due to many reasons, none simplistic though simple answers always given. 4. Iraqi government remains moderate and participates in global economy. In progress but depends on #3. 5. Iraqi government is an Ally to Western governments. Goal accomplished but can change based on #3. 6. Iraqi government, armed forces, and civil police forces are capable of handling threats and can enforce stability so that US forces (and others) may exit. In progress but not looking good. If we can accomplish these things, that is a win for us, for the Iraqi people, and for the Middle East.
Much agreed. I hope these get implemented ASAP for the sake of the innocent lives that are being lost every single day on both sides.
None of that is why we went to war though. We went to war because Iraq was a threat to national security with their weapons of mass destruction. Iraq (as a country) has always had problems... but I'm not sure why we go to war to fix another countries problems when they don't ask for help. Why don't we go to war with Nigeria? They have just as many problems in their government as Iraq does. All the items listed above don't really have anything to do with a military war IMO, that sounds like stuff the United Nations was designed for. Why do we need a massive military presence to force Iraq to participate in a global economy? If they don't want to, they shouldn't have to. I'm talking about the war here, not helping a government/society prosper. By definition a war is "conflict involving use of weapons and physical force by states or other large-scale groups, coinciding with a lack of dialogue between the parties". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War What's going in Iraq isn't a war, we aren't really fighting anyone. We are just being police.... a job for the UN. Us going to war to force the country we are fighting against so we can have an ally sounds a bit like how Nazi's went around taking over other countries in Europe. What if Iran decides they want to force the US into being their ally? Does that give them the right to go to war with us to make that happen? If our military can't handle the internal problems in Iraq, how can anyone expect their military (which pretty much is non-existent) to do it?
I totally agree with you there, and I could not have put it better myself. Check my "pride" thread for more info: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=169579 Oh and be careful too or Mia, GTech and the rest of the crazy gang will be giving you red rep for disagreeing with the Bush administraion.
We can't. Our media will ensure failure. The media shapes the minds and opinions of the people of our country and as long as they continue on the same course of action, the US will never do anything right, ever. Abscense our presence in Iraq, terrorists would take over that country in a way saddam could only dream. Iraq is not the "be all end all" to terrorism in the world. It's just one front. See this post for why we went to Iraq. See this post for who said what about Iraq. We are no longer actively searching for WMD. Last week, the NYT slipped up in trying for another October surprise against the administration. The angle? A front page story about how Bush put secret nuclear information on the web that could have benefitted Iran. The problem? The NYT didn't think. What they actually did was confirm that saddam was very close to completing a nuclear bomb and that he had the materials, knowledge and desire to pursue such. While they were trying to "bash Bush," they inadvertantly confirmed what's been said all along. How about these folks? At that time, we had won. Saddam was removed from power (though still on the run). Then virgin seeking terrorists infiltrated the country. The reason we're in Iraq is because if we left that country to terrorists, there would never be any chance. As bad as it is now, and we're there, the killing of Iraqis they do every day would be ten fold. See comments above.
Blame: 1) Liberals 2) Muslims 2) The media 3) Gays But not the people who are ACTUALLY responsible....AKA THE DECISION MAKERS.
It sounds to me like Saddam might have been GOOD for Iraq. We removed him from power, and now we are worried that terrorists are going to take over the country and run rampant. He seems to have done a better job keeping terrorists out than we are doing (if anything, it seems like there are MORE terrorists in Iraq now than when Saddam ran the place). Is it too late to put him back in power now?
But there was and is known terrorist organizations there, some was directly supported by saddam. Currently everything is just active, you are correct about how it wasn't when saddam was in power, he kept some unity amongst the terrorists. They liked the pay.
I'm not saying it was GREAT back then... just maybe he did a better job at keeping terrorists at bay than we are now. Maybe we pulled an important part of the food chain out (Saddam). He was so busy keeping terrorists at bay that he didn't have time to make any weapons of mass destruction. Now terrorists aren't beaten back by a tyrannical dictator.
You could be right there, gworld. The last few republicans having been associated as gay, were vilified by democrats, the party that is supposed to be for gays. But the way democrats went after gays, one would have to question whether that holds true anymore.
I was agreeing with that point. Any area that unstable that has to have dictators to keep some sort of peace will inevitably be a disaster until the next dictator takes power. Especially when you add the belief system that is prominant in the region, you will have people hungry for the power to force everyone into their way of thinking or death.
The republicans were not vilified for being gay but for being a two faced hypocrites but I suppose that is a requirement for being active in the party. I don't know if Saddam was good for Iraq but he was definitely GOOD for America's interests as a country. The decision to remove him was not based on geopolitical consideration and what is good for America but as pure business decision on what is good for few people who made money out of this mess while the majority of Americans have to pay the bill for it.