[Orion27]

Well, General Pelosi and those Democrats invested in defeat had their chance a poitical theater.
By greasing the palms of defeatists on the fence, Pelosi eked out a small majority. Expect a veto from the
President

[tie]

Don't you mean fat-mouth, hypocritical ePelosi and other terrorist-sympathizing, elitist, bean-counting "politicians"?

In other words, you're laying it on a bit thick. Perhaps this will be Obama's Watergate?

[RIRedinPA]

Considering the largress we've had for the past six years with Congressional pork from the Republican led progress, um the bridge to no where ring a bell, calling this bill pork is simply hyperbole. Most of that so called pork is an extra $20B for the military budget more than Bush asked for.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA 

Considering the largress we've had for the past six years with Congressional pork from the Republican led progress, um the bridge to no where ring a bell, calling this bill pork is simply hyperbole. Most of that so called pork is an extra $20B for the military budget more than Bush asked for.

Shhh. Don't bring facts into this.

[Krusty]

I agree that the pork should be stripped out ... regardless of the fact that the Republican pork reached ridiculous levels over the last 6 years. Just because that IS what was previously done, if the Dems don't do differently ... then where's the improvement ?

However, this is a somewhat moot point. The Pres. stated that he will veto any bill that sets a timetable for withdrawal ... that's the key issue in this particular case so, even if the pork does get removed, it will take an override of a presidential veto in order to pass.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Shhh. Don't bring facts into this.

I agree the Democrats own defeat!

[Face Ache]

Something like 72% of Americans wanted this ("preemptive") war. How can you possibly change your mind in the middle of a WAR you started?

I just don't get it.

I'm trying to imagine Germany reaching France in WWII and then saying "Oops! Changed our minds! Everyone home again!"

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

Something like 72% of Americans wanted this ("preemptive") war. How can you possibly change your mind in the middle of a WAR you started?

I just don't get it.

As Americans, we are probably some of the most easily manipulated people on the planet. Every bit of news is presented in a in flashy, rock n' roll imagery that is extremely light on facts and skepticism and extremely heavy on agendas. "News" is just another word for commercial these days. Having said that, I'm one of the 28% opposed from before it started (and I'm no, I'm not a pacifist across the board .... this one reeked of stupidity and alternate agendas even in the Fall of 2002 when they began ramping up the lies).

In hindsight, there is one extremely conservative, ex-marine who's opinions ... derided as lunatic fringe at the time ... have been borne out by the unfolding of events over the last few years. Scott Ritter. He lets them all have it from Hillary/Kerry to the Neocons. Here's a recent interview of him that gives a really good account of the unfolding of the lie machine, ramped up under Bill Clinton since the early 90's and continued and expanded under the Bush administration that led us to where we are today.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Krusty 

As Americans, we are probably some of the most easily manipulated people on the planet. Every bit of news is presented in a in flashy, rock n' roll imagery that is extremely light on facts and skepticism and extremely heavy on agendas. "News" is just another word for commercial these days. Having said that, I'm one of the 28% opposed from before it started (and I'm no, I'm not a pacifist across the board .... this one reeked of stupidity and alternate agendas even in the Fall of 2002 when they began ramping up the lies).

In hindsight, there is one extremely conservative, ex-marine who's opinions ... derided as lunatic fringe at the time ... have been borne out by the unfolding of events over the last few years. Scott Ritter. He lets them all have it from Hillary/Kerry to the Neocons. Here's a recent interview of him that gives a really good account of the unfolding of the lie machine, ramped up under Bill Clinton since the early 90's and continued and expanded under the Bush administration that led us to where we are today.

72%, or whatever the number is, doesn't mean a thing. We were given false reasons for the invasion, and that's what counts.

[Face Ache]

Oh I understand that.

But, uninformed or not, you can't start a war and just expect to walk away from it because you aren't winning. War is Serious Business. If you're losing you double your efforts.

The US has the power to win in Iraq. It just doesn't have the willpower.

[OldManMac]

It's not a war we can "win." What too many fail to grasp is that you can't fight a conventional war against an ideology; you have to convince your opponents that your side is better than their side, and simply pointing guns at them and telling them that you're really there for their benefit doesn't work. You can fight a conventional war against a conventional enemy, like what was done in WWII, where the concern was Germany taking control of Europe, and it was easy to differentiate who your enemy was, because they wore uniforms and they fought in cohesive units. In Iraq, there is no such "advantage," if you will, and we have multiple factions involved. The U. S. does not have the power to win in Iraq.

[tie]

Face Ache, nobody has the willpower to win this war, even Bush. That is why from the very beginning he has not bothered to plan or to dedicate nearly sufficient resources to the war. Even if we can still win this war, by sending hundreds of thousands more troops, is it worth it?

If even Bush doesn't want to win the war, but just to delay its end, then what really is the point? How is it serving the national interest?

Another way of looking at it is that if the only solution really is political, then this type of move puts political pressure on the Iraqi government. That's a good thing.

The bad thing, however, is that I don't like Congress managing the war. I don't know that this qualifies as "micromanagement" as its opponents claim, but it is certainly closer management. However, I don't see much alternative when the president is unwilling to manage the war himself. Bush wants to stay the course forever, and sees any change as "cutting and running." Look how long he kept Rumsfeld on despite abundant evidence of his incompetence. How do you run a war with an incompetent Commander in Chief who lies constantly? It just doesn't work and I'm glad Congress is stepping up to fill the void in leadership.

[Face Ache]

Would you agree that if the US withdraws from Iraq, it deserves any Iraqi terrorist attacks on US soil in the future?

[RIRedinPA]

In 1939 an overwhelming majority of the German people supported invading France.
In 1945 an overwhelming majority proabably saw that as a bad idea.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

Would you agree that if the US withdraws from Iraq, it deserves any Iraqi terrorist attacks on US soil in the future?

Not likely to happen. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...701373_pf.html

[RIRedinPA]

That's an oversmplification.

You cannot just throw more fire power at the problem. The end result of that will be more US troops in body bags, a lot more dead Iraqis and more recruits for the insurrgency.

The solution is not military but political. As I said in my post above, what Sec. of State Rice is doing is the best effort we have made in four years. What do you think the Sunni insurgents are fighting for? It's not a relgious ideology, it's for power. They were in power and with the toppling of Hussein they lost it to the Shia through the elections because they are a minority. And since their tribal lands (Anbar, Fallujah, Ramadi) do not sit on top of any oil they have no leverage other than the insurgency to try and retain some power within the new government.

Which is why the recent oil revenue sharing plan, which is quite equitable, is the best bet to ending this fiasco on a positive note. The Sunni sheiks seem to be ok with this plan. This will allow them to stand down the insurgency, to show their people that they achieved something good for their fight. This also allows the Sunnis to stop giving support to al Queda in Iraq. They don't like them there anymore than they like us there.

The next step has to be Maliki and Sadr standing down the militias and cleaning out the death squads in the police and army. And then you need some sort of truth and reconcilliation council, on the lines of Rwanda or South Africa though I wouldn't grant blanket amnesty to everyone. Some people did some very nasty things and justice should be served on them.

But throwing another US brigade or two over there is not going to get those results.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA 

That's an oversmplification.

You cannot just throw more fire power at the problem. The end result of that will be more US troops in body bags, a lot more dead Iraqis and more recruits for the insurrgency.

The solution is not military but political. As I said in my post above, what Sec. of State Rice is doing is the best effort we have made in four years. What do you think the Sunni insurgents are fighting for? It's not a relgious ideology, it's for power. They were in power and with the toppling of Hussein they lost it to the Shia through the elections because they are a minority. And since their tribal lands (Anbar, Fallujah, Ramadi) do not sit on top of any oil they have no leverage other than the insurgency to try and retain some power within the new government.

Which is why the recent oil revenue sharing plan, which is quite equitable, is the best bet to ending this fiasco on a positive note. The Sunni sheiks seem to be ok with this plan. This will allow them to stand down the insurgency, to show their people that they achieved something good for their fight. This also allows the Sunnis to stop giving support to al Queda in Iraq. They don't like them there anymore than they like us there.

The next step has to be Maliki and Sadr standing down the militias and cleaning out the death squads in the police and army. And then you need some sort of truth and reconcilliation council, on the lines of Rwanda or South Africa though I wouldn't grant blanket amnesty to everyone. Some people did some very nasty things and justice should be served on them.

But throwing another US brigade or two over there is not going to get those results.

My god, how do you think diplomacy works? You make an offer they can't refuse. Dolt!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by tie 

Don't you mean fat-mouth, hypocritical ePelosi and other terrorist-sympathizing, elitist, bean-counting "politicians"?

In other words, you're laying it on a bit thick. Perhaps this will be Obama's Watergate?

Well, he said his stuff really loudly, so it must be correct.

[besson3c]

Win against WHAT people? This is a civil war right now - Sunnis vs. Shias... We long passed the war of Saddam's Baath party against us.

Many of your talking points need upgrades.

[hyteckit]

Mission Accomplished. War is done.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Win against WHAT people? This is a civil war right now - Sunnis vs. Shias... We long passed the war of Saddam's Baath party against us.

So... just trash the joint, then leave?

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

So... just trash the joint, then leave?

Trashing the joint and leaving is a horrible thing to do .... really reprehensible behavior. The only thing worse would be to trash the joint ... and then keep on trashing the joint and never leave. If you can think of a plan that will save the situation and "win" the war ... please let us know what it is (the administration certainly hasn't outlined any logic for why a larger version of the same exact plan that failed miserably last year is going to produce different results now than it did then). Otherwise, we're just continuing to pummel a country, putting our own people in harm's way, and delaying the recovery of the country.
What path should we follow to "win" this war and what reasoning do you have that the path is the right one ??

[hyteckit]

Pres. Bush doesn't support our troops!!! He will veto funds for our soldiers. Damn unpatriotic bastard.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by Krusty 

Trashing the joint and leaving is a horrible thing to do .... really reprehensible behavior. The only thing worse would be to trash the joint ... and then keep on trashing the joint and never leave. If you can think of a plan that will save the situation and "win" the war ... please let us know what it is (the administration certainly hasn't outlined any logic for why a larger version of the same exact plan that failed miserably last year is going to produce different results now than it did then). Otherwise, we're just continuing to pummel a country, putting our own people in harm's way, and delaying the recovery of the country.
What path should we follow to "win" this war and what reasoning do you have that the path is the right one ??

My revolutionary idea for winning the war is to send a big enough army. I think you should reintroduce the draft. At first I thought there should be a call for volunteers, but it seems the war supporters are against that idea for some reason. So draft enough men (and women) to go fight the war that 72% of Americans WANTED.


BTW I'm actually expecting something much bigger than 9/11 to come along and change everything. Draft, martial law, etc.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

My revolutionary idea for winning the war is to send a big enough army. I think you should reintroduce the draft. At first I thought there should be a call for volunteers, but it seems the war supporters are against that idea for some reason. So draft enough men (and women) to go fight the war that 72% of Americans WANTED.


BTW I'm actually expecting something much bigger than 9/11 to come along and change everything. Draft, martial law, etc.

One more time; 100% of Americans could have "wanted" the war, but that's irrelevant. They were lied to, with fabricated and misleading "evidence," so that Bush could accomplish his agenda of achieving a long term strategic route to access ME oil. This had nothing to do with bringing "democracy" to Iraq. There are countries all over the world that this administration supports that are run by dictators and despots, and the reason that this administration supports them is because they have access to oil and natural gas resources. George Bush doesn't give a flying f*** about democracy; he's even doing his best to destroy it in the country he wishes he could run with an iron fist.

As far as your expectations that something bigger may come, you may have hit the nail on the head, when it comes to martial law. It won't work, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't try it. http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0227-32.htm

The president’s desire to have all military options on the table for domestic law-enforcement purposes was not granted by Congress. That was October 2005. However, a few weeks ago we learned that “quietly tucked into the enormous defense budget bill” (that was signed into law by President Bush in October 2006) were provisions “that make it easier for a president to override local control of law enforcement and declare martial law.” (“Making Martial Law Easier,” New York Times, Feb. 19, 2007) Also signed into law at that time were provisions that stripped aliens and possibly US citizens of the right of habeas corpus, which is the constitutional right of recourse to the courts. (See “Repeal the Military Commissions Act and Restore the Most American Human Right,” Thom Hartmann, Common Dreams, Feb. 12, 2007; “What Is Habeas Corpus,” Larry Beinhart, Common Dreams, Jan. 31, 2007; “Democracy The Big Loser on Habeas Corpus,” Ralph Nader, Common Dreams, Sept. 30, 2006). Having essentially overthrown Posse Comitatus and habeas corpus in one month in 2006, there is more to fear than ineptitude from this administration with the onset of a bird-flu pandemic, which the president appears to view as a potential trigger for a declaration of martial law in the United States.
-------------------------

That article mentioned the NYT article on Making Martial Law Easier, which is only available on Times Select now.

Here is the original NYT article, from Feb. 19, 2007

EDITORIAL
Making Martial Law Easier
A disturbing recent phenomenon in Washington is that laws that strike to the heart of
American democracy have been passed in the dead of night. So it was with a provision quietly
tucked into the enormous defense budget bill at the Bush administration’s behest that makes it
easier for a president to override local control of law enforcement and declare martial law.
The provision, signed into law in October, weakens two obscure but important bulwarks of
liberty. One is the doctrine that bars military forces, including a federalized National Guard,
from engaging in law enforcement. Called posse comitatus, it was enshrined in law after the
Civil War to preserve the line between civil government and the military. The other is the
Insurrection Act of 1807, which provides the major exemptions to posse comitatus. It
essentially limits a president’s use of the military in law enforcement to putting down
lawlessness, insurrection and rebellion, where a state is violating federal law or depriving
people of constitutional rights.
The newly enacted provisions upset this careful balance. They shift the focus from making sure
that federal laws are enforced to restoring public order. Beyond cases of actual insurrection,
the president may now use military troops as a domestic police force in response to a natural
disaster, a disease outbreak, terrorist attack or to any “other condition.”
Changes of this magnitude should be made only after a thorough public airing. But these new
presidential powers were slipped into the law without hearings or public debate. The president
made no mention of the changes when he signed the measure, and neither the White House
nor Congress consulted in advance with the nation’s governors.
There is a bipartisan bill, introduced by Senators Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, and
Christopher Bond, Republican of Missouri, and backed unanimously by the nation’s governors,
that would repeal the stealthy revisions. Congress should pass it. If changes of this kind are
proposed in the future, they must get a full and open debate.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

One more time; 100% of Americans could have "wanted" the war, but that's irrelevant. They were lied to, with fabricated and misleading "evidence," so that Bush could accomplish his agenda of achieving a long term strategic route to access ME oil.

They weren't lied to. You and I were reading Scott Ritter, et al, before the war. The truth was out there. People CHOSE to believe Chimpy McFlightsuit. And if you'd won the war easily and they threw flowers, you'd be in Iran by now.

Didn't even Hillary Clinton authorize Bush to have his war?

It's only because the war hasn't gone well that it's suddenly imperative to find excuses to get out.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

Would you agree that if the US withdraws from Iraq, it deserves any Iraqi terrorist attacks on US soil in the future?

Of course not, why? Did the US deserve the Saudi terrorist attacks?

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by tie 

Of course not, why?

Uh... because you tore up their country, destroyed their infrastructure, triggered a civil war and then just... left? Today there are probably thousands of Iraqis who'd gladly set off a bomb in New York.

Originally Posted by tie 

Did the US deserve the Saudi terrorist attacks?

No, but that's a different kettle of fish, isn't it? Unless you're trying to tie 9/11 to Iraq somehow...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

So... just trash the joint, then leave?

I think that even if we were to have left immediately after removing Saddam, these tensions would still have erupted. These may have been inevitable consequences of our decision, however I do agree that it sucks to do what you describe.

However, I also believe that we have no choice in doing anything but this, because I don't think there is anyway we can tidy up the joint.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

My revolutionary idea for winning the war is to send a big enough army. I think you should reintroduce the draft. At first I thought there should be a call for volunteers, but it seems the war supporters are against that idea for some reason. So draft enough men (and women) to go fight the war that 72% of Americans WANTED.


BTW I'm actually expecting something much bigger than 9/11 to come along and change everything. Draft, martial law, etc.

And who would this army fight against at this point? The Sunnis? The Shite? Kurds?

We have nobody to fight except for the unidentifiable.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

Uh... because you tore up their country, destroyed their infrastructure, triggered a civil war and then just... left? Today there are probably thousands of Iraqis who'd gladly set off a bomb in New York.

Whether we leave now or 2 years from now, it doesn't matter... We have nobody to fight over there right now, there is nothing left there for us. We cannot mediate their civil war that represents tensions 1300 years in the making, especially not within 2 years, or whatever.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

And who would this army fight against at this point? The Sunnis? The Shite? Kurds?

We have nobody to fight except for the unidentifiable.

They wouldn't fight anyone. That's the point of a large army, people don't **** with a large army.

The relative peace can be used to put the pieces back together and train Iraqi police, to do the policework the country needs.

Further, a tri-partate Iraq seems a very good option despite some of its issues. At least on the surface.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

They wouldn't fight anyone. That's the point of a large army, people don't **** with a large army.

The relative peace can be used to put the pieces back together and train Iraqi police, to do the policework the country needs.

Further, a tri-partate Iraq seems a very good option despite some of its issues. At least on the surface.

So we basically function as a temporary partition in between them, then what happens when we leave? This is not solving any problems, just buying us time.

Perhaps you have a point about the police, but it has been several years in the making and Iraqi security is not up to the job. What is happening now in Iraq is a revolution. We are seeing eruptions of many years of extreme tension. Many people are in a state of rage and are driven by this rage to commit acts of extreme violence. This is not a time for lectures and instruction, it seems clear that many are not interested - they are too deeply entrenched into this civil war for this, it is too late. It's sort of like trying to break up a fist fight underway, except not being able to physically reach either side.

If you read first hand accounts of what the Iraqi people are feeling, you might agree that even political solutions like dividing Iraq up right now are not really first and foremost on the minds of the Iraqis - staying alive is.

A larger military presence there and training for the Iraqi security forces may have been the way to go years ago, but I'm afraid it is too late now. There is nothing we can do. Even if there was a way to mediate this problem, we are probably the least qualified out of anybody in the world to do this, if nothing more for the simple fact that we invaded their country in the first place, and, like you said, we have not displayed a whole lot of competence for a while now...

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So we basically function as a temporary partition in between them, then what happens when we leave? This is not solving any problems, just buying us time.

Perhaps you have a point about the police, but it has been several years in the making and Iraqi security is not up to the job. What is happening now in Iraq is a revolution. We are seeing eruptions of many years of extreme tension. Many people are in a state of rage and are driven by this rage to commit acts of extreme violence. This is not a time for lectures and instruction, it seems clear that many are not interested. They are too deeply entrenched into this civil war for this, it is too late.

If you read first hand accounts of what the Iraqi people are feeling, you might agree that even political solutions like dividing Iraq up right now are not really first and foremost on the minds of the Iraqis - staying alive is.

You have some mental block over what Face Ache and myself are trying to tell you.

You answer your own questions. You say a temporary stop on the violence won't solve any problems... tell that to the person who's first and foremost thought is staying alive.

This isn't about freedom, or winning. It's about what we owe to the Iraqis for ****ing their **** up.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

A larger military presence there and training for the Iraqi security forces may have been the way to go years ago, but I'm afraid it is too late now. There is nothing we can do. Even if there was a way to mediate this problem, we are probably the least qualified out of anybody in the world to do this, if nothing more for the simple fact that we invaded their country in the first place, and, like you said, we have not displayed a whole lot of competence for a while now...

Which is my point in the other thread. If we have reached this point it is our fault. Saying we should leave because of the Iraqis, or trying to convince someone that is a good reason, is insulting.

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

They weren't lied to. You and I were reading Scott Ritter, et al, before the war. The truth was out there. People CHOSE to believe Chimpy McFlightsuit. And if you'd won the war easily and they threw flowers, you'd be in Iran by now.

Didn't even Hillary Clinton authorize Bush to have his war?

I agree with you. Had we met the "6 days, 6 weeks, I doubt 6 months" prediction of Donald Rumsfeld, the whole thing would have glossed over and been like many of the NUMEROUS military interventions we have made and are constantly making ... if we win quickly and big, the US citizenry doesn't really bother to go back and question the justifications after the fact.

I fall somewhere between you and KarlG about the responsibility of US citizens in supporting this war initially. Yes, a lot of correct information was out there prior to the war and, in my opinion, people should have at least weighed some alternate opinions before throwing in behind this little escapade. However, I agree with KarlG in a sense because a lot of the correct information (Scott Ritter et. al) was stuff that people absolutely had to go digging to find. These viewpoints were all but absent from the mainstream news sources and a good chunk of the populous (even more so in 2002 than in 2007) really weren't adept at scouring the internet for alternate news sources .... the mainstream viewpoints in the dominate media (TV and newspapers/weeklies) really didn't leave room that alternate viewpoints even existed, much less gave a reasonable account of what those alternate viewpoints were. Moreso than perhaps any other westernized nation, the media here are unabashed mouthpieces of the the powers that be ... a "mainstream" news show in the UK would be considered radical left wing here.

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

It's only because the war hasn't gone well that it's suddenly imperative to find excuses to get out.

This is correct for all practical purposes. However, you're position on this seems to be a moral argument that the US citizenry supported the war and therefore should face the consequences of its failure, face the consequences of its expense, face the consequences and sacrifices that winning war entails (e.g. be willing to institute a draft and actually put their lives in danger en masse). If the war was important enough to fight, then it was important enough for us all to make personal sacrifices in order to win it and the overwhelming majority of Americans have had to make no sacrifice whatsoever.

While I agree with your moral stance on this, for practical purposes making the US citizenry face the music for the folly of our actions is going to prolong the suffering of Iraqis as well. We shouldn't let that country continue to be destroyed and continue its downward spiral just so that we get our just desserts. With our withdrawal ... the violence won't stop immediately but I do think they will be better off 3, 5, 10 years down the road than if we continue to stay. We should take just half, or even a fourth, of what we are spending on our military intervention and turn whole hog into rebuilding Iraq's water supply, electric grid, and major public facilities ... that will, in my opinion, have a far greater stabilizing effect than sending more military personnel (aka "targets") and trying to push "order" on a people who have, measurably, turned their resistance up two notches for every one notch we try to turn up control.

The best solution to this was to have never gone in the the first place, IMHO. But since that's not the case, the next best thing we can do is remove ourselves now. I agree (as did many top ranking military officials in the US ... other then Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and cronies) that IF we were hell bent on going in, we should have gone in with enough force at the outset to establish control and enforce security to get the lives of Iraqis normalized as quickly as possible. But we didn't do that and the window to do that (4yrs down the road) has long passed. Iraqis have largely passed the point of caring about losing their lives anymore ... stepping up our pressure now is only going to step up the slaughter.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

Would you agree that if the US withdraws from Iraq, it deserves any Iraqi terrorist attacks on US soil in the future?

Yeah, pretty much. Although I think Iraqis aren't likely to seek revenge against the US for turning their country into a sh!t-hole. Not now, anyways. They are too busy trying to kill their religious opponents or just trying to survive in a country with terrible infrastructure and no long-term plans to fix any of it.

I can foresee a time though, probably a generation from now--when the country is just starting to recover from the damage we inflicted--that those younger generations who tend toward extremism in their ideologies will seek an outlet for their frustrations and choose to blame the US for their problems. And then their might be Iraqis seeking ways to commit terrorist attacks against the US from within the US. But, I think Al Qaeda is the only group willing/planning to conduct terrorist attacks on US soil right now.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

They weren't lied to. You and I were reading Scott Ritter, et al, before the war. The truth was out there. People CHOSE to believe Chimpy McFlightsuit. And if you'd won the war easily and they threw flowers, you'd be in Iran by now.

Yup.

• Too many Americans believed the notions put forth by the Bush Administration and the main-stream media that Iraq really was as threatening as it was claimed to be.
• Plus, I think there was a bit of the revenge blood-lust factor--in retaliation for the attacks of 9/11--in the American people's motivations for supporting the invasion of Iraq.
• Also, I think the invasion satisfied an emotional need of the American people to have their notion of "specialness" re-inforced after the attacks of 9/11 showed the world we were not "special" (i.e.: immune from bad things like terrorist attacks) and were, in fact, just like everyone else. I can assure you, the footage of the toppling of the Saddam Hussein statue was as much for the American people to start to feel good about themselves again as it was for the Iraqi people to feel as if they had been liberated from a tyrant. When that statue came down I think a lot of Americans started to regain that (false) sense of cultural specialness.
• Finally, there is the religion angle for Americans supporting the invasion. For the conservative Christians in this country there has always been a strong linkage between support for military action and the promotion of Christian belief. Heck, just look at the Cold War against the "Godless Communists" to see how American religious identity gets commingled with military policy.

Anyway, those are my reasons why I think a majority of the American people willingly chose to support the President in his plans for the invasion of Iraq. Sadly, I was among the small minority who opposed the war in Iraq. And I was among an even smaller minority who supported the war in Afghanistan but opposed the war in Iraq.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Yeah, pretty much. Although I think Iraqis aren't likely to seek revenge against the US for turning their country into a sh!t-hole. Not now, anyways. They are too busy trying to kill their religious opponents or just trying to survive in a country with terrible infrastructure and no long-term plans to fix any of it.

I can foresee a time though, probably a generation from now--when the country is just starting to recover from the damage we inflicted--that those younger generations who tend toward extremism in their ideologies will seek an outlet for their frustrations and choose to blame the US for their problems. And then their might be Iraqis seeking ways to commit terrorist attacks against the US from within the US. But, I think Al Qaeda is the only group willing/planning to conduct terrorist attacks on US soil right now.

So instead of pushing forward now in Iraq to establish a stable government and rebuild security, you would leave it to the next generation to go after the terrorists in Iraq ( after they presumabaly come after us for our current mis-deeds) . We would be justified to invade, by your logic, just as we are doing in Afghanistan now.
You make a good case for staying in Iraq now and trying to build a stable country.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

And I was among an even smaller minority who supported the war in Afghanistan but opposed the war in Iraq.

I think you'll find that small minority was a bit larger than expected.

The ties to Afghanistan and 9/11 were clear as day, it was when the administration started talking about WMDs and Iraq that our justified retaliation for 9/11 went awry.

[besson3c]

Well, if Obama were to not have been creating YouTube videos, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place...

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

My god, how do you think diplomacy works? You make an offer they can't refuse. Dolt!

Real life doesn't work like the Sopranos asswipe.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA 

Real life doesn't work like the Sopranos asswipe.

You must be one of those maintstream Democrats mentioned in these threads earlier. Let me explain something to you. While you get points here for being a condescending liberal, you lose points by outing your perverted interest in scatology. Wipe your nose.

[sek929]

What? I think someone spilled crazy in this thread too!

[besson3c]

We are living the world of Idiocracy (check out the movie if you don't know what I mean