"It’s not an anniversary likely to be celebrated this week: America invaded Iraq four years ago. And it’s still not a mission accomplished," our editorial today notes. But despite the sectarian violence, daily bombings and instability, there are a few hopeful signs.
As the editorial noted, since the start of a military "surge" in Baghdad, there’s been a significant decrease in bombings and attacks in the city — though some fighting seems to have shifted elsewhere in the country. And Bush made two excellent moves in appointing Robert Gates as defense secretary and Gen. David Petraeus as leader of U.S. forces in Iraq. But are the changes too little, too late?
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Monkeyhawk on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- DorisKing on Huckabee felt costs of campaign
- Jed on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
83 Comments
As long as it helps – it’s never too late, and as long as American lives are protected – it’s not too little.
I hope the changes will continue to benefit us and the War on Terror.
This war is a terrible, horrible mistake and nothing will make it a mission accomplished.
ok, please explain exactly how our invading Iraq and the continuing occupation benefit the US in the “war on terror”?
GSheridan, I agree, it’s never too late, and as long as American lives are protected it’s not too little. There is still time to save many, many more American lives.
Support our troops by writing your Senator or Representative to let them know you want American service people out of Iraq. American troops are being killed every day in Iraq and the only way to truely support our troops is by demanding that they are removed from the conflict.
Interesting.
I think we ought to remove all of the police officers from major metropolitan areas.
There have been more than 14,000 police officers killed in the United States. If we puul them all back to police academies we can save hundreds of lives each year.
Hank
Bush’s bungle in Iraq will be recorded as the biggest fiasco in American history.
And I think that we should never let a fireman enter a burning building.
Touché Hank, nice analogies.However, a stark difference that defeats your logic is that police and firefighters are here protecting the direct interests of us.The US Armed Forces in Iraq are not protecting the US, they are mediating in a conflict between warring factions within that country.
Well Brian,
That’s one way of looking at it.
Another way is to say they are providing security and training Iraqi police and soldiers so the new government has a chance of getting established.
Like police the modern fighting man is a volunteer. They are protecting our interests abroad. The congress overwhelmingly voted to give this president the authority to go into Iraq, they need to let us do what is necessary to win.
Hank
Hank,You had me with you until the last phrase ‘they need to let us do what is necessary to win.’
It would be different if we had a clear goal, like training Iraqi forces so we could turn their country over to them, and there was a clear exit strategy and measurable stopping point, I would support our govenment’s decision to keep the troops there.
However, that is not the case in Iraq. How do we know when we have ‘won’ and can bring our troops home?
Brian, that’s an interesting view, and while I respect it – I don’t agree.
I feel that true support of our troops is supplying them with the military leaders who are the best in their field, the equipment to get their job done, and, at the same time trying to protect them.
I’m happy that this surge is already working to quell the insurgents and bolster both our soldier’s and the Iraqi’ peoples motivation to hold the line.
pacifism has never won a war, after all.
HankWould you and all the other republican war mongers please define “victory”? Is victory defined as electricity and clean water? Is victory defined as no car bombs or i.e.d attacks for 60 days? If this is your idea of victory then we are years away from it. Let alone a victory to which is defined by peace and prosperity. I guess you have to define victory before you can achieve it.You are correct, our congress did give this president the authority to go into Iraq. However, its 4 years later and today’s Iraq is more violent and a bigger threat to U.S. interests than ever before. The policies of the U.S. regime have trivalized our “modern fighting man” and what they stand for.We will pay for this war for many years to come in many different ways. It is time to set a timetable for our withdrawl. This and only this will motivate the Iraqis to get their act together.
I would also like to add that the republican war machine is quick to let everyone know that they support the troops. Isn’t it interesting that the VA has fallen into disaray on their watch. Support them while they are fighting and forget them when they come home. That is the policy of the U.S. regime. With 200,000 wounded U.S troops how hypocrytical can you be?
Too little too late? Hmmm…
When is too late?
I think the “little” can be quantified. I agree that the force should have been larger in the beginning.
The bottom line is to support the troops no matter what the press and talking heads say.
Having positive influence in both speech and act helps encourages our troops to do the job more efficiently and quicker. If you think this is not true, you have never heard a motivating halftime speech. :)
Thanks for proving my point Republican. You people and your speeches. Its amazing how educated people can totally underestimate a culture. The Iraqi people don’t need a halftime speech. And please do not patronize the troops with one. The troops need to be able to fight with their gloves off and the people of Iraq need lights and a toilet that flushes on a regular basis. Support the troops is the Republican motto. Funny how they do not honor them in death or fund their hospitals when they lose an arm or leg.
Gsheridan – while I can completely support the war on terror (although I wonder how you can fight a war against an ideology as opposed to a physical enemy – is there any real way to win that? I mean, think about it, you can defeat some, but the idea will pass on to others…) I CANNOT support the mistake in Iraq. We were lied to going into this mess. Saddam was never involved with Al Queda – and Al Queda was not an active faction in Iraq until AFTER the US invasion… Trying to include the war in Iraq as part of the war on terror is misguided and delusional – let’s call a spade a spade here and admit that the US went into Iraq for completely different reasons than the war on terror – and if we are REALLY fighting a war on terror, then how com (straight from the horse’s mouth) Bush “doesnt even think” about Osama Bin Laden (the REAL terrorist mastermind threat to the US) anymore?
Mike, your reasons are correct, but this is a WAR. People die.
I would term ‘victory’ as the eventual ‘turning away’ of Arabs from radical Islamic ways and towards a more tolerant, and Capitalistic system.
Capitalism cures many an ill.
GSheridanThen your WAR will go on for thousands of years to come. This society that you seem to think capitalism will cure is one of deep religious and tribal beliefs. Capitalism cures greed. Again you underestimate their culture and intelligence. Money may cure all that ails you, but do not be so arrogant to believe that it cures all. Some people have more integrity than that.
GS – do we ‘turn them away’ from radicalism by killing them and their families? I submit that turns them more away from us.
Republican – I have also heard wonderful motivational speeches by managers who were not respected by their workers. Those speeches were useless.
Isn’t that an oxymoron HardTruth?
“Wonderful motivated speeches are useless.” :)
GSheridan,
“I’m happy that this surge is already working to quell the insurgents and bolster both our soldier’s and the Iraqi’ peoples motivation to hold the line.”
The insurgents are most likely doing what was predicted, and is logical — fade away underground, observe who helps the U.S., and return/attack when the U.S. leaves.
The ‘Day of Death’ scenario…
They live there, and they know that the U.S. cannot stay there forever. Time is on their side.
Only thing left up in the air for me is whether this perpetual police action was accidental or on purpose.
I tend to think it was on purpose. A half a trilliom dollars says I’m right.
Yes JR it was the biggest Heist ever pulled off..
and I thougt Bush was a Moron..
GSheridan,I wholeheartedly agree with the definition you just gave for supporting our troops. And I also agree that pacifism does not win wars.
What I disagree with is the nature of our very conflict in Iraq and the whole idea of a war on terror. To have a war there must be an enemy. We are in a ‘war on terror’ so our enemies are terrorists, right? Well a terrorist is anyone who uses terrorism. Wikipedia defines terrorism as ‘a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or ideological goals.’
Terrorism and terrorists are not groups or things that can be defeated. The ‘terrorists’ can never surrender to us because there is no they to surrender.
(sorry this is repetitive, I had typed it then got called away for a bit)
Meanwhile, in the Kurdish area, things are coming along…
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001407.html
You no what I’m tired of hearing!!! is that someone LIED to get us into this war.. no one lied.. it was bad Inteligence..
Bad intelligence. Got to be the funniest thing I have heard all day. Blame the intelligence because it didn’t match the great “Deciders” decision. Funny how we relied on intelligence coming off of 9/11. They got that one right so why not listen to them again. There were blantant lies that took us to war. WMD’s, links to Al Queda, etc.. Give the Republicans credit though. If we would do in Iraq what we have done in New Orleans then things would be great. Oh wait, we screwed that one up too.
GSheridan,’I would term ‘victory’ as the eventual ‘turning away’ of Arabs from radical Islamic ways and towards a more tolerant, and Capitalistic system.’So this is a religious war you think we are fighting? Good Christian vs ‘radical’ Islam?
Yes BG, it was bad intelligence. On the part of our president. This is way too important to claim a mistake. Bush’s mistake has caused the loss of thousands of lives. We can’t afford that kind of mistake.
No, Brian, I’m not a Christian. But I DO see Islam as behind Christianity about 500 years in its evolutionary process.
I wouldn’t want to go back to the Dark Ages of Christianity, hence I think we need to rid modern-day Arabs of the idea that Sharia Law has any sway in today’s society.
For all our good.
I thought Christ taught tolerance and understanding? Once again war is waged in the name of Christ. You sound like Hitler when you say that we need to rid the world of modern day Arabs and their thoughts. That is the problem with organized religion. You prop yourself up using Christ as your backer. Is this Nazi Germany?
Then again he claimed to be saving the world too.
Well, I personally don’t care what your faith is GS.However, I do know that our Constitution prevents us from promoting one religion over another, regardless of whether we agree with that religion.Yes, I agree that many of the rules of Sharia Law are archaic by Western standards (equal rights, et al). However it is quite presumptuous for us to say they should abandon their faith because ours is more progressive.
Brian~ Our Constitution prevents the establishment of a State (National) religion. Says nothing about ‘promoting’.I know you know that, just was clarifying.
“However it is quite presumptuous for us to say they should abandon their faith because ours is more progressive.”With the plurality of religions and religious freedom in our Country, I think the evidence is that we are pretty tolerant. However, if someones religion leads to them killing us, they we got’s problems.I don’t care if somebody worships a tennis shoe, just don’t vow to kill and eliminate us.
.. no one lied.. it was bad Inteligence..
I guess that’s why George W Bush gave Tenet that Presidential Medal of Freedom.
“You gave us bad intelligence, but what the heck, here’s the highest award a civilian in this nation can receive.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6712212/
Bremer and Franks got one too.
Central,
Mr. Tenant has been a longtime employee in intelligence. He was appointed Director in 1997, back when Clinton was President.
I’m sure there are things that he’s done that were absolutely amazing and heroic, but we we’ll never know about them as they were classified.
Give the man his due.
The fallacy of the Bushies is that “Capitalism” is even a remote possibility in a country who’s a one trick pony for income, Oil. A more likely form of govt. would be a ‘benovolent Dictator (President), or a socialist state. Perhaps most likely a combination of both, but not a Capitalist economy. Which is much of the reason Sunni and Shiites are killing each other. Even after the Shiite come out on top, the different tribes will be vying for power and killing each other.
Iraq used to have a decent agriculture and manufacturing economy along with oil. We have destroyed that.
HardTruth,
Do you mean that agriculture base of “Oil for Food” – thousands of children starving to death agricultural economy under Saddam?
The Kurds are doing fine with their Oil. It is the pipelines and oil pumping farms that got blown up is the problem.
Manufacturing? Iraq was known for manufacturing exactly what in the way of consumer goods?
They had been self-sufficient in these areas prior to Gulf War 1. The bombing then and the subsequent embargoes destroyed that. They also once had a fairly decent middle class. These are the ones (2 million) who have fled the country since the invasion.
Their war against Iran (before their invasion of Kuwait) had begun the crippling of their economy.
Yes we are lie to everyday by this admin. we were and are fighting terrorists in afganistan. what does that have to do with iraq, money, oil,.Why not saudi arabia thats were they came from thats were they are trainned, were they are rised to hate us. why iraq. Bush is the wrong man to lead us in or out of a paper sack, let alone a war.
From the Library of Congress:
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+iq0056)
The nonpetroleum industrial sector of the Iraqi economy grew tremendously after Iraq gained independence in 1932. Although growth in absolute terms was significant, high annual growth rates can also be attributed to the very low level from which industrialization started. Under Ottoman rule, manufacture consisted almost entirely of handicrafts and the products of artisan shops. The availability of electricity and lines of communication and transportation after World War I led to the establishment of the first large-scale industries, but industrial development remained slow in the first years after independence. The private sector, which controlled most of the nation’s capital, hesitated to invest in manufacturing because the domestic market was small, disposable income was low, and infrastructure was primitive; moreover, investment in agricultural land yielded a higher rate of return than did investment in capital stock. World War II fueled demand for manufactured goods, and large public sector investments after 1951, made possible by the jump in state oil revenues, stimulated industrial growth. Manufacturing output increased 10 percent annually in the 1950s.
Industrial development slowed after the overthrow of the monarchy during the 1958 revolution. The socialist rhetoric and the land reform measures frightened private investors, and capital began leaving the country. Although the regime led by Abd al Karim Qasim excepted industry from the nationalization imposed on the agricultural and the petroleum sectors, in July 1964 a new government decreed nationalization of the twenty-seven largest privately owned industrial firms. The government reorganized other large companies, put a low limit on individual shareholdings, allocated 25 percent of corporate profits to workers, and instituted worker participation in management. A series of decrees relegated the private sector to a minor role and provoked an exodus of managers and administrators, accompanied by capital flight. The government was incapable of filling the vacuum it had created, either in terms of money or of trained manpower, and industrial development slowed to about 6 percent per year in the 1960s.
After the 1968 Baath revolution, the government gave a higher priority to industrial development. By 1978 the government had revamped the public industrial sector by organizing ten semi- independent state organizations for major industry subsectors, such as spinning and weaving, chemicals, and engineering. Factory managers were given some autonomy, and an effort was made to hold them responsible for meeting goals.
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+iq0057)
IraqAGRICULTURESince the beginning of recorded time, agriculture has been the primary economic activity of the people of Iraq. In 1976, agriculture contributed about 8 percent of Iraq’s total GDP, and it employed more than half the total labor force. In 1986, despite a ten-year Iraqi investment in agricultural development that totaled more than US$4 billion, the sector still accounted for only 7.5 percent of total GDP, a figure that was predicted to decline. In 1986 agriculture continued to employ a significant portion–about 30 percent–of Iraq’s total labor force. Part of the reason the agricultural share of GDP remained small was that the sector was overwhelmed by expansion of the oil sector, which boosted total GDP.
Large year-to-year fluctuations in Iraqi harvests, caused by variability in the amount of rainfall, made estimates of average production problematic, but statistics indicated that the production levels for key grain crops remained approximately stable from the 1960s through the 1980s, with yield increasing while total cultivated area declined. Increasing Iraqi food imports were indicative of agricultural stagnation. In the late 1950s, Iraq was self-sufficient in agricultural production, but in the 1960s it imported about 15 percent of its food supplies, and by the 1970s it imported about 33 percent of its food. By the early 1980s, food imports accounted for about 15 percent of total imports, and in 1984, according to Iraqi statistics, food imports comprised about 22 percent of total imports. Many experts expressed the opinion that Iraq had the potential for substantial agricultural growth, but restrictions on water supplies, caused by Syrian and Turkish dam building on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, might limit this expansion.
**********************************
Point is that the country had at least a foundation for an economy; unfortunately ever since the Iran war it has been in a downward spiral.
Wendy – I think we CAN fight and WIN against an ideology. It’s happened before. At some point, the people of Islam will uprise and turn against those who commit vile acts, but that could take hundreds of years. Meanwhile, their reign of terror is spread through an opposition that lurks in the shadows. Terrorism is nothing new, it’s been around for millenniums and each time it rules, it continues on the path of least resistance until folks are so sick of it – that they give their own lives to fight it.
I just don’t think it has to go that far. I think putting down the insurgency is only ONE step, then we must introduce the people themselves, to a better way of life. Already we’ve had great progress in that area, despite the setbacks from the insurgency.
Brian – this really isn’t about religion – it’s about the radical faction WITHIN a certain religion.
Much like the faction that once hung those perceived to be ‘witches.’ Not all Christians wanted to hang those gals, or burn them at the stake, but they didn’t stop the ones doing it until it was so rampant it controlled their lives.
Same with radical Islam. I’m not saying most Muslims are violent – I don’t believe they are – but the ones who ARE hide, sneak around, and plot and plan their dirty deeds in secret. As most radicals, they are willing to sacrife a lot – even their loved ones for their agenda.
It may be a long, long time before peaceful Muslims stand up to the radicals – we can hurry that process along by showing them that we will NOT tolerate their violence and that they, themselves, will benefit if they follow our lead.
Yes gsheridan that is what we are doing in afghanistan what does that have to do with iraq.
Radical Islam did not have a foothold in Iraq until AFTER the invasion.
Repuke – terrorism now has a foothold in Iraq. Granted, Al Qaeda was not there before -but Saddam was, and we had more than one President (and intelligence) that advocated replacing him with a Democratic government. It was a strike against terror, not necessarily the brand Al Qaeda puts out. But now, they are there, too.
As far as Afghanistan, did we not just have a terrorist gentleman confess to masterminding 911?
If that’s true – bin Laden may not have been the top gun after all.
We have to stay the course in Iraq. And it is going to be a long and costly fight. But we messed it up and we have to fix it. You don’t go into somebody else’s home, mess it up and leave. And nobody said this would be easy or not be costly. Maybe next time you folks will vote for responsible people that don’t go to war on a whim. After all we would not be in Iraq of not for your support.
in irag because of bush right.
yes I agree stay the course in Iraq. but not under this leadership. That is my piont. This could have been done right. without flipping the bird to the rest of the world, without lies leading the way. once agian why iraq. to scare to go after real Radical Islam. once agian money, oil. are those the reasons for iraq.
“It may be a long, long time before peaceful Muslims stand up to the radicals – we can hurry that process along by showing them that we will NOT tolerate their violence and that they, themselves, will benefit if they follow our lead.”
Aint working G.
Sorry no link. But I heard of a recent poll of Iraqi citizens.
Would you attack the Americans? 51% said yes.
This compares to 4% in 2003.
Occupations NEVER succeed. Everytime you kill one bad apple (or innocent) their entire family and friends become your new enemies. Too we are institutionalizing into the new government the very factions that hate one another.
Like I said upstairs, the only thing I don’t know is if this is incompetence or shrewd business. Either way, Iraq stays broken.
“It may be a long, long time before peaceful Muslims stand up to the radicals – we can hurry that process along by showing them that we will NOT tolerate their violence and that they, themselves, will benefit if they follow our lead.”Posted by: GSheridan | March 19, 2007 at 06:21 PM
Kumbaya my lord kumbaya (sing it with me!)…
LOL, GSheridan. Such blithe optimism from you. What, did the lithium finally kick in? :)
Democracy in Iraq, you’re delusional.
Yes, it’s too little too late to prevent civil war in Iraq.
As soon as American troops move out – whether that’s 10 months from now, 10 years, or 10 decades – then the Iraqis will finish what they’ve begun. I don’t think there’s an example in history where ethnic cleansing on this scale has been halted by a peaceful, outside intervention once it began. The American surge can only delay the inevitable.
“…by showing them that we will NOT tolerate their violence…”
I bet you look real cute when you stamp your heels while you’re sayin’ that, Sheridan.
Unless: is the G in GSheridan short for Goofy?
LOL
Yes, Pedant, I AM cute. I don’t stamp my heels much these days – only when I’ve got my Ruby Slippers on and am planning a trip.
A bipartisan list of Presidential mistakes, not in any particular order:
Bay of Pigs (Kennedy)
Vietnam (Kennedy, LBJ)
Watergate (Nixon, and actually, Watergate aftermath weakened the President and made it impossible for Nixon or Ford to win the war in Vietnam that our troops did NOT lose!)
Beruit Embassy bombing (Reagan)
Somalia (Clinton didnt allow tanks)
Omaha Beach, WW2 (FDR— I think we lost more men there, in one day, mostly due to bad planning, than in Iraq)
Korea (Truman sent forces there with NO winter gear, they froze!)
Anyway, the list could go on and on. Iraq is by no means our worst Presidential “blunder.”In fact, it is far to early to call Iraq a mistake at all.
We will NEVER know what the world would look like if we had NOT removed Saddam.One thing is for sure, Libya would STILL be a terror state!
“We will NEVER know what the world would look like if we had NOT removed Saddam.”Posted by: Econ101 | March 19, 2007 at 06:59 PM
Whoa. Powerful argument (laughing now), dude.
LOL
Is this what they call “damning by faint praise?”
econ that is your opion and not fact. but we do know we were not about to be attacked by Iraq. OBL is sitting in saudi somewhere being treated like a king.
Cite your source for OBL sitting in saudi or better yet, report it directly to the CIA and you will be an instant millionaire with the reward money.
waiting…;)
I wish I could prove it.
but rememeber you heard it here first.
;)
OBL is taking dance lessons from Elvis, I hear!
By the way, folks, Germany never bombed the US either. Japan did that.And — yes, I know, Germany did declare war on the United States.Guess what? Saddam was at war with the US before W was elected.
You hate Bush, I get that, but try to use some facts and historical knowledge when you make comparative claims, would you?
no econ”Anyway, the list could go on and on. Iraq is by no means our worst Presidential “blunder.” “sorry for the confusion
econI know you could care less aboutOBL just like bush. just as long as we are fing up iraq.
when did I make a comparative claim. What did iraq have to do with OBL. germany and japan have nothing to do with it.
;)
Worst President Ever is a comparitive Claim is it not — (did not say that YOU said it)
Worst Blunder Ever is a comparitive Claim is it not? (again, did not say you said it.)
Saying that Iraq is not part of the war on terror because Iraq did not bomb us on our soil (Iraq certainly shot at our lawful troops and airmen in the no fly zone) — anyway, Germany didnt bomb us either. Doesnt matter, Iraq had broke the rules, repeatedly and the world would not have respected us much if Saddam was allowed to remain in power.
Hard choices had to be made.
Do not be seduced into the idea that the Neville Chamberlain, “Peace in our Time” types don’t have blood on their hands. There is a price to be paid when tyrants are not challenged.
You can blame Bush, all you want. But, this whole thing, goes back, 30-50 years, on the backs of alot of people!
I blame the American people, that vote to put some of these bloodsuckers into office, in the first place. Or, how about those, that don’t even vote?
We have created our own demise; We have no solutions to many of our national problems, or those of an International level. We are just “Running Amuk.” No end in sight!
I really fear, for this country!!
Bush Private Army in Iraq at Taxpayer Expense:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqM4tKPDlR8
this is not about world respect, bush is destroying that. Germany was doing at the time, (not 12 years earlier) things in the world we should have stood up sooner for. shooting at planes over his own space is not the same as tactic used by OBL and alike. I am not saying we should not have done something about him. but we could done it without losing world repect, without looking as if we just need to kick somebody’s ass. It is not so funny how the iraqi people would not stand and fight agianst him for themselfs, for they were who he was a tyrant to. there are many fights going on in iraq, all of which bush started. without real plan to settle. saddam could control it but we cant?
Umm, if we had just turned this country to glass 4 years ago would we still be having this conversation??
meelosh is not an iraqi!
Meelosh ………. turning to glass might be harsh, but, I do think we should have gone in stronger and harder.
If the mission is a correct one, then do it. Get it done, and start the recovery.That is my prob with this action, quit dilly-dalling around, quit going 1/2 arse, and get home.
Sanford you make a goos point. From this information i deduce u must be a republican…..or the first democrat to make sense
Excuse typo i meant good point
I agree, if only the first bush would not of left job unfinished.I was alway told not piont a gun unless you attend to use it!
War is Hell. If it’s important enough to do it, then do it. If it ain’t then don’t do it 1/2 ass, and, don’t do it at all.
In the last 50 + years it seems that, as a nation, (Commander in Chief’s), dance around it.
If the mission is that important, then do it full speed. Why drive to Kansas City (the mission), at 30 mph (effort exerterd)?
Meelosh is a saudi!
You guys have said all there is to say about this issue. I don’t think I can add much. I am also afraid for this country and it saddens me that we are so divided. No matter what we do many people will die. Whenever we leave there will be violence. It will continue if we stay. I really think that we have missed what we said we were going to do and that is to stamp out terrorism. What is also sad is that there is no real leadership on either side. All they do is spit at each other and call names. They change nothing. I just hope somewhere out there a leader stands up because to be honest there isn’t anyone right now that I really want to vote for. I just want someone to find a solution and I want my boys to come home alive and with all their parts.
Brenda~~ You’ve said some very true things. But, it wouldn’t be any fun if there wasn’t some kind of discussion!!! Now, would it??And, I’m just posing questions, not saying a right or wrong.
Ok: “No matter what we do many people will die. Whenever we leave there will be violence. It will continue if we stay”
Will the violence and casualties be less or more if we left now?
“All they do is spit at each other and call names.”Very sad and very true. Seems that political discussion turns into a shouting match and photo op very quickly. Has it always been that way????
“I just hope somewhere out there a leader stands up because to be honest there isn’t anyone right now that I really want to vote for.”In this hostile political environment, anyone who stands up for public office is going to get blasted/lied about/muckraked/etc, etc…Geez, no wonder an honest debate can’t take place.
worst.blog.ever
As to bad intelligence, the problem with the intelligence was:It was old, the General that was charged with the planning of how to deal with the WMDs became very frustrated in that he could not even find any information on what Saddam had other then the list of 948 sites that the WMDs were suppose to be. When asked how many, what type and which site was which. The Government’s “experts” on Saddam’s WMDs could not answer. Finally the General asked, “Well how do you know Saddam has any WMDs?”. The Experts answer was “We don’t!”. The intelligence was over ten years old, and the list was made about the time of the first Gulf war.
The problem for the rest of the world leaders was, they had no intelligence that showed that Saddam still had WMDs. But neither did they have real prove that Saddam did not have WMDs. Some simple assumed like I did, That Bush was not invade unless he knew something I did not. Lacking real proof to counter the claim that Saddam still had WMDs the other simple did nothing. So it depends on your definition of “Bad intelligences”.******It was Cheney that wanted to push the Saddam/Al-Qaeda link, Tenant on a number of occasions demanded that reference be stuck from speeches. Because he discovered that the rumor of Atta and a Iraqis intelligence officer was not truth. Powell was to make a case for the Saddam/Al-Qaeda link during his U.N. Speech. But after talking with Tenant he refused and dressed down the WMDs point from where it had been after asking about the intelligence that it was based on. On Tenant and Powell, they are covered by the term “Good soldiers” Tenant at one point considered resigning, but did not want to be seen as a rat deserting a sinking ship during his nation going to war. Powell tried to balance the different factions between those wanting to invade and those that thought better of it. But basically like Tenant did not want to abandon his country in its hour of need. As to why Iraq? To be honest that is a good question! The U.S. Government asked the American enterprise institute to form a panel to evaluate the terrorist threats to the U.S.The panel listed the threats as such, #1 Iran because of their support of Terrorism world wide and a general hatred for the U.S. #2 was a tie between Saudi-Arabia and Egypt, as the Sunni in both countries were actively supporting Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. Saddam and Iraq was ranked as a possible threat some time in the future. 1 and 2 were said to be the most difficult to deal with as the resistance would be “intractable”.They ranked Saddam as being the easiest to deal with, perhaps that is where the saying “a cake walk” came from.*****In a sense G is right in that we have to show them that we can not tolerate the Fundamental violence. But we are battling Ideal logy and not a religion, a country, in such we can not use military force effectively alone.The reason that the Arab world at large did not get up in arms about Afghanistan was that it was clear that we were going after those that attacked us. But the different with Iraq is that there was no clear attack. There for it was seen as an attack with out cause and more as the Terrorists had said that we were attacking Moslem nations. Not acting as the Fundamentalists say we will act is a start toward combating the Fundamentalists. Another way is to show not only tolerance, but that we are willing to help. By programs that make lives better and aid in humanities actions. In Africa right now in developing countries that are prone to terrorist recruitment. The U.S. Military is building schools and digging water wells. That will help in this struggle against the Fundamentals. By countering their assertion that we do not care about Moslem people.****“I blame the American people, that vote to put some of these bloodsuckers into office, in the first place. Or, how about those, that don’t even vote?”Ok, the first time around how would we know? I thought G.W. was going to be a lukewarm President. By the second time around I had seen enough to know not to vote for Bush again. As for those that do not vote.. You get what you invested then!****“I agree, if only the first bush would not of left job unfinished.I was alway told not piont a gun unless you attend to use it!”
In a bit of irony G.H. Bush did explain why he stopped at the Iraq boarder and not go on to Baghdad. In a speech ( I really need to find this in the book) to a group that he was being honored by. The reason was two folded, we were acting under the U.N authorization. If we had pushed on to Baghdad we would lost our authority and the coalition among those many Arab states. Who had expressed that we were not to go beyond driving Saddam’s forces out of Kuwait.Second reason was that to go on to Baghdad would have meant we would have been there for better then ten years fighting an insurgency alone and alienating the Middle East countries against us. That said, you next question would be “Then why don’t dad tell son it was a bad ideal?”. He was pushed to do just that by many that knew him for a long time and those from his Presidency. He said that he would only counsel G.W if his son asked for his counsel. That in this case, G.W. Bush was his President and more then just his son.****“War is Hell. If it’s important enough to do it, then do it. If it ain’t then don’t do it 1/2 ass, and, don’t do it at all“
On this I agree, we are not at war as a nation, our boarders are still open, if we had gone into Iraq as we should have instead of fighting on the cheap. Most of the problems seen today would not be there. If the Bush administration would have been as serious about post invasion as they were about the invasion we would have maybe have left by today and truly had a friendly nation in this.
Sorry after reading some of what I posted. I see gramer error and I guess I am tired then I thought.