[TheMontashu]

Agreed, Bush 1 should have ignored the cries of the left and driven straight to Bahgdad, imprisoned Saddam and set up a new governemt.

again i 2nd the idea of bush 1 getting the job done

At least we'd have a 10+ year start on where we are now.

If bush 1 had done it 14 years ago we would still have troops over there now, one thing that the left is calling for that would distroy the country and send it into civil war it would be puling our troops out now.

 

[Changleen]

Agreed, Bush 1 should have ignored the cries of the left and driven straight to Bahgdad, imprisoned Saddam and set up a new governemt.

At least we'd have a 10+ year start on where we are now.

Wow, I actually agree. If that was the genuine goal at the time, it should have been done properly and all of this could have been avoided.

However in reality it was not the goal at the time, as pre-emptive regieme change was still seen as 'wrong' (which it nearly always, even in cases like this, IS!)

Really what should have been avoided is this whole second attack on Iraq, or if you are hell bent on removing a particular dictator who is no worse than the many many others who you support for whatever dumb reason, at least do it properly. There is lot of discusson now amongst military analysts that the force that was sent to Iraq was the minimum needed for the optimum situation, and as we have seen the situation that we encountered was predictably (and 85% of the rest of the world told the US this again and again and again) far from the optimum situation.

We can go back in time and play 'what if' as much as we want - the really big one would be "What the British had maintained their belief in a strong commonwealth and not decided domestic concerns were more important" - The world would be a massivly different place, America may even be a British colony. But that's not how it went.

In reality it's largely pointless to speculate about such things, and the further back we go, the more pointless it becomes. Speculating about a bad decison you made last month is useful in that you might learn from your mistake in a way that is meaningful and relevant to your life. Speculating about a 15 year old event and the lessons you might have learnt if your presumtions about how things may have been different happen to bear any resembalance to a possible reality is a sure exercise in self delusion. The chaotic nature of human activities means that 'predicting' the course of events from some supposed deviation in history is about as scientific and useful as astrology. You can only learn from actual history, not your self imposed sceanareos based on a pile of 'what ifs'.

So, rationaly limiting ourselves to more recent events, we find ourselves questioning are a) Should we have gone to Iraq in the first place post 9/11? b) Having done so did we execute the mission as well as possible?

To most people it seems the answer to both these questions is 'No'. What has happened though has now happened, it was a mistake, much of America has now admitted that to themselves, although your deluded leadership still cannot face up to this.

So, the REAL question is, what now? As I first proposed in this thread, has the US now failed in it's goals? If we define these goals as the stated goals of the administration, then the answer appears to be 'Yes'.

In no way does the situation now in Iraq reflect the proposed outcomes of the war, by almost any standard, and certainly by any of the 'big' goals - Finding WMD, reducing terror, helping the Iraqi people live a better life. Indeed it appears that our continued presence in Iraq is actually hindering these goals in some very powerful ways.

So what of the alternative? What if we leave? If you listen to popular opinion, it seems that leaving would be the exact receipe to turn Iraq into even more a civil war than it already is. Opposing factions would have no resistance to turning on each other and fighting it out to the bitter end.

However, it seems a large amount of this opinion is based on the premis that those fighting in Iraq are 'terrorists' or 'insurgents' bent on turning Iraq into an Islamic republic. And for certain a number of them are.

What this fails to accept, and what still a large portion of the American media will not admit to, is that actually a the great majority of those fighting in Iraq are Iraqis, most of whom just want imperialist America to get the hell out of their country.

Iraq is a largely Muslim country, but as recently as 1990 it was a progressive, 1st world country too. Iraqi people remember this. They remember good hospitals, clean streets, expensive cars, a high quality of living. Go read a few Iraqi blogs. The vast majority of Iraqis don't want to live under strict sharia law. Sure, they'd like a bit more of a representation of Islamic principals in their laws, but their not going to be denouncing capitalism any time soon. And now who do they see as the country that has robbed them of this quality of life? No wonder they are conflicted, and no wonder they want us out.

The US presence has polarised the country, giving extremists power they should not have - a voice beyond their size and actual representation. Is it not inconceivable that by leaving Iraq, removing the justification for the majority of the violence (the presence of, and collaboration with the oppressor) will be removed? That ordinary Iraqis can find their voice again?

Or is it too far gone? Has the US action destroyed stability to a point that the only way to end this is through fighting until one group prevails?

The current situation represents nothing - it means a continuing spiral of attacks, wosening of facilities, deaths, the erosion of Iraq into another dusty 3rd world disaster. People robbed of hope and purpose. A situation which will surely take generations to rectify, and provide a steady stream of anti US hatred for the next 50 or 60 years. Whatever happens, keeping things as they are is stupid, and will only make things worse.

So - 3 choices:

1) Do nothing - Stay as you are. George Bush's choosen course it seems. A third (100th?) HUGE mistake in his judgement. Reap the rewards of his idiocy with 50 years of anti-US sentiment in the middle east, the threat of bombings, instability and the loss of opportunity, freedom and hope for millions and millions of human lives, including many many more American troops.

2) Pull out and let Iraq sort itself out. Hope the Iraqis can display a maturity and self dicipline which they have so far not been given credit for by America, despite being a far older civilisation.

3) Make a choice to commit to Iraq fully. Send more Troops and Police, send more Engineers, send Doctors, send Educators. Selflessly work to rectify the damage you have done WITHOUT expecting or laying the groundwork for any reward. America might learn that benevolence brings it's own rewards. Rather than demanding or simply taking profits, demanding an interest in Iraq's future, a friend who has genuinly helped for the good of another will be rewarded as such. For a lot of Americans, this will mean getting over their selfish 'no taxation without representation' mentality. Do the 'christian' thing. Do the 'human' thing. You've already spent nearly 200 BILLION dollars killing and destroying. How about the same amount in reparations, but with no expectation of reward? Is America capable of such an act? It's not an image you can spin to people, it has to be based on a reality, on genuine actions and outcomes based on the desire to help, not to fatten one's own wallet or progress your agenda. As shocking as this may seem to some, the rest of the world has no difficulty in seeing straight through American motives when it acts this way.

 

[Changleen]

I can't decide between the practicalities of 2 or 3. I'd like to think 3 would be best, but I question the ability of self-interested America to go through with it (or even start it) but I know you guys are great at ignoring stuff you don't want to know about, so 2 seems more logical.

 

[ZoRo]

US of Anamerica has lost Iraq ever since they set their Big Mac a** over there. It's turning into a daily report about who and where the G. I. Joes of the US of Anacondamerica have been ambush. Bring those poor guys back into their country, it's hell to endure things like that...

 

[Changleen]

Agreed, Bush 1 should have ignored the cries of the left and driven straight to Bahgdad, imprisoned Saddam and set up a new governemt.

At least we'd have a 10+ year start on where we are now.

One thing, I forgot to say, It wasn't the left, it was at the request of the Saudis, Egyptians and so forth that we stopped where we did in 91.

 

[gschuette]

Not 2. Bad idea no matter what you think about the war. Leaving the Iraqis before they ask us to leave is wrong. They need us and abandoning them right now is just bad. I can't think of any other way to put it.

 

[XtCamZ]

Changleen, that was awesomely written. It's obvious that this is something you deeply care about, have thought a lot about, and you have the courage to speak out against the norm, and that makes you a great American.

 

[Silver]

Changleen, that was awesomely written. It's obvious that this is something you deeply care about, have thought a lot about, and you have the courage to speak out against the norm, and that makes you a great American.

He's about as American as I am...

edit: Iraq was never a first world country either. Chang forgets the whole Iran/Iraq war ****ed things up good and proper there before we got our hands on the place. I'd compare it more to Yugoslavia under Tito than anything else. How did that end up, by the way? Peachy keen, right?

 

[valve bouncer]

He's about as American as I am...

I'm way more American than the pair of you times 2

 

[MMike]

..... and that makes you a great American.

Oh that was funny.......

 

[XtCamZ]

Hey, I'll be the first to admit it sounds corny as hell, but I'm being very serious.

I'm tired of people attacking others, such as Chang, just because they don't agree with him. They attack by calling them whiny, scumbag liberals and tell them they shouldn't be Americans by saying **** like "If you don't agree, then get the hell out!" Not to mention all the personal attacks. The ignorance gets really old.

Here are some great qoutes:

To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.
— President Theodore Roosevelt, 1918, during WWI

In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated, and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot.
— Mark Twain

'My country, right or wrong' is a thing no patriot would ever think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.'
— Gilbert K. Chesterton

"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right."
— Carl Schurz

It is lamentable, that to be a good patriot one must become the enemy of the rest of mankind.
— Voltaire

 

[valve bouncer]

I'm tired of people attacking others, such as Chang, just because they don't agree with him. They attack by calling them whiny, scumbag liberals and tell them they shouldn't be Americans by saying **** like "If you don't agree, then get the hell out!" Not to mention all the personal attacks. The ignorance gets really old.

Changleen is nothing if not a proud American. I agree with you entirely. Good post. Take note N8.