Iraqi bloodbath,.

Ah, it's all so obvious once it's spelled out in one place like this: if America and England caused all the sectarian violence, then the second we pull out it will end. Iraq will once again unanimously elect a peaceful leader, and the Middle East will go back to the state of peaceful tranquility it always maintained before the evil interlopers messed everything up.

The moonbats are proven right, but Bush steals all the credit! The perfect crime.

Wow, it's hard to know how to respond to a reply such as this.

Are you being sarcastic? I hope to God so.

Anyway, the position you're mocking is that of a strawman. Those who are blaming America and England for what's going on there now can go back to the beginning of Western Imperialism in the Middle East. Unless they're totally ignorant, they aren't saying that America and England caused what's going on there exclusively now. If there are people who think that way, then they're just about as problematical as those who entirely blame the Iraqis for this situation (or bad Iraqis + Al Qaeda, as never before the US invaded, by the way).



Marcus, your theory is very interesting. I find it hard to believe that Republicans in the US, besides those few in the administration now, will keep supporting the war for much longer. And it has everything to do with the elections in 2008.

I wish I didn't think like this. I would love to believe in a overriding western humanitarianism defining our nations role but sadly the facts seem to belie this.
I am not certain whether this is a bilateral conspiracy to protect the legacies of western mutual interests,

Thank you for at least not dismissing this idea without some real consideration.


I do take a minor offence by some people thinking that all British people come from England. Please let me enlighten you, There are 4 different suburbs in the magical city of "England"

There's Sotlandland. thats just north of Londonia's main town center.
Next theres WalesVille to the west.
Please don't ignore Irelandopia or as the NewYorkians call it Grennland.
England doesn't actually exist, It's a myth that we tell stupid people so they can blame the conspiracies on someone fictitious.

Look, if you want to hate George Bush, then just say "I hate George Bush." It's simple but honest, and people will respect you for that.

Just quit randomly jabbering about things like "sectarian violence", "conspiracies" and "politics." It doesn't make anyone else seem somehow naughty; it just makes you look sillier than you have to.

Bless.

You need help constructing an argument.

I'll think for you.

Marcus,
what makes you think that all the ills of the Iraqi's are limited to the west, Surely there must have been, at least, a bitter indifference between sunni and shia that was only unleashed by the freedom the west gave them.
This is obviously a radical religious divide that maybe we could never understand or even see coming.
Has it ever crossed your mind that all we did was uncork the bottle in Iraq and now were desperately trying to put it back in.
How can you blame our leaders for this, if they were unaware then they can hardly be blamed.


NOPE thought of that too and it doesn't work for me.

Hahah, your kidding right? The Republicans are warmongers. I like the democratic party, they are better for the people, but they are pussies. If we have a republican president, we will most likely be at war. If we have a democrat, it tends to be more peaceful, but things always go wrong under their leadership. And the US will most likely be at war until it falls. Kinda funny how we were at war with the middle east when I was born, and we still are.

Edit: If we wanted to end the war, we would have left by now. Our "goals" in Iraq were 1) "To make sure Iraq was at peace with its neighbors." They are divided in religious civil war, and they are at peace with their neighbirs. 2)"Iraq is an ally in the War on Terror." That has already been done, the ISF is there to combat this "terror." 3)"Iraq has a representative government that respects the human rights of all Iraqis." This has been done too, they have a democratic government, and they elected their own officials. And lastly 4)"Iraq has a security force that can maintain domestic order and deny Iraq as a safe haven for terrorists." As of September 06, they had around 320,000 ISF soldiers. I think that should be enough, since they continue to build it up.

We completed those set objectives, yet were still at war? I think we should pull out and let the 2 religious factions, and the ISF battle it out.

You guys utterly amaze me at times... Marcus, nice post.

The role of a president or any leader is to make hard decisions. Those decisions are based on the information available at the time, and because the decisions are hard means there are consequences – good and bad. Each decision is based on information that makes it through the filter of advisors, which the leader chooses. It is quite clear now that Bush and Blair chose their advisors…poorly. As we have seen, the Neoconservative’s advisor’s ideological view of the world is seriously flawed. I call the current NeoCon ideology the ‘Rose Colored Glasses’ and ‘I Can’t Hear You’ ideology due to its propensity to see what it wants in spite of the facts and since it is seemingly impervious to contrary opinions. It is extraordinarily unfortunate that learning this lesson has cost so many lives (particularly Iraqi lives) and that it will likely cost the US taxpayers upwards of a trillion dollar before the dust settles.

The US and the West can have less and less influence over the events in Iraq and the trajectory is toward more bloodshed and destruction. As has been said, the genie is out of the bottle. What is ironic is that the end result will likely be the opposite of what Bush and his Neoconservative advisors intended: less ‘prestige’ for the West, hobbling of US credibility, less influence in troubled areas of the world, diminished military strength of the US (and NATO) and the ability to project force when it is critical, and a long-term ideological strengthening of the those Bush wished to destroy.

Very sad.

Bush has said he is the ‘decider’. Quite true. What is also true is that he will not pay the price for his decisions as the decider, except for having the unfolding debacle in Iraq that will be labeled Bush’s War. He has said he doesn’t lose sleep over what is happening. What does that say about him?

Hydro

The only thing that has to do with our elections in 2008 is the timetable that the democrats want. All troops out near septemeber of 2008. Just close enough for them to say how they brougt our troops home but not enough time to see the devestaion that will bring. Well, anything to win an election i guess.
The devestaion they will blame on bush, and not their continued tactic of run when it doent look good. the same mess but on a larger scale that Somalia was in ever since Clinton had us run away after losing a helicopter. Of course that helped others view as as peoiple that won't fight back and easy to attack. It took the Ethiopians of all people to do the job the united states couldnt handle. maybe they could win iraq for us when we decided the game is over.

I can't say im for war, this or any, but i cant see just walking away. and i cant see TELLING the insurgents when we're leaving. its like telling them all they have to do is hold out until a specific date and they win. What will happen next time theres a terrorist attack? If you want to have a timetable, fine, just dont bradcast it. I think the isurgents get all the intelligence they need from watching CNN.

dude, your country is England, you wouldn't internationally call yourself by your state/city......and yes, you do sound very uppity with your trying to describe geography in England.....believe it or not, England does exist.....just as the USA does exist, the queen of England, not the queen of Yorkshire.....

I agree with you wholeheartedly. You should never agree to a timetable that isn't behind closed doors, we gave the Iraqi's too much info when we declared war, so if they had any WOMD, I'm guessing they gave them to the Irans, which I believe is why the Iranians are further along than before the war.......I don't think its a coincidence that suddenly Iran is pushing for nuclear power....they got the materials from the IRAQI's......I think IRAN and IRAQ hate each other, but they hate USA and Israel more.....which would be a reason to transfer it, when they knew they were going to lose them eventually if they didn't.....

The news constantly mentioning so many dead in iraq every day, has a toil on the American people who get sick of hearing it.....Its the liberal news media that is irritating....

The truth is that we lose more people to auto accidents in a year, than we have lost in the entire IRAQ war......your in more danger driving in the US, than you are going to war and fighting for your country......

Car Crash Stats: There were nearly 6,420,000 auto accidents in the United States in 2005. The financial cost of these crashes is more than 230 Billion dollars. 2.9 million people were injured and 42,636 people killed. About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States -- one death every 13 minutes
http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/stats.html

the news really skews things though......the truth is that your safer getting out of the USA and signing up for the military.....even in war time.....

He was describing the geography of Great Britain in a sarcastic way, making fun of those who use the term Great Britain and England interchangably. England is only a small part of a greater nation comprised of England, Scotland, Whales, and Northern Ireland. So really Great Britain is his country, not England.



You're only looking at it from an American point of veiw. Sure not that many of OUR people may be dying, but many Iraqis are. So when the news says that many are dying in Iraq, it is not a lie or liberal bias, it is the truth (of course I admit that it may be an exaggerated version of the truth)

calling the media biased isnt the same as saying they.re lying. Just that they skew the facts, yea they are facts, but they present them in a way as to further their own opionion. Lets look at this: in general, the war in Afganistan is not as unpopular as in iraq. in the news they will mention the number of dead enemies in afganistan and down play the number of US casualites. BUT, in Iraq they do the opposite, thy will tell us the moment a US soldier is wounded but NEVER mention the number of enemies dead. THAT is being biased, getting the people to hate the Iraq war and agree with the afganistan war.

I dont trust politicians but i trust the news media even less. the politicians want power and reelection but at least they're not after neilson (spell check) ratings.

If you want to compare the Iraq war to our other "successful wars" lets also compare the casualties. Everyone will say that WW2 was a sucess. we WON. but at waht cost. We've lost over 3000 men in Iraq in a few yeras. in WW2, 3000 men would be lost before lunch time. Thats not beinmg cold, thats the facts of war. How many perished on the shores of omaha beach? And that was considered successful. We could also compare civilian deaths too. War sucks but you can't tell victory from defeat right away. i think i'll hold my judgement until i see what the results are. Vietman was also considered a defeat but to this day the communists never took hold of the south, and wasnt that what we fougt for in the first place? protecting our ally from the evil communists. Same with Korea.

This is a reminder to everyone to keep this discussion civil. If it descends too far, it will be locked and directed to JoeUser as per the sticky.

Let's see. Eight years under Clinton brought sustained prosperity and budget surpluses year after year, and there were no international incidents to speak of. The rest of the world thought favourably of the US for the most part and the American administration had no problems getting along with other foreign agencies. Yes, that all indicates something going wrong to me all right.   

That's why I said "lie OR liberal bias" and admitted that the media tends to exaggerate the truth. And I also cannot stand the lack of coverage on the Afghan war. They don't talk about how the Taliban controls most of the country and how Karzai's governmant and NATO troops only hold the capital of Kabul. My guess is they won't talk about the failures in Afghanistan because that was seen as a popular war while Iraq wasn't, so it gets negative coverage from the media. Basically, I agree that the media is extremely populist in its coverage, and I abhor it as much as the next person.



No argument from me on that one.



You are correct on Korea, but the North Vietnamese Communists did take South Vietnam. I suggest you research the Fall of Saigon for detailed information on the fall of the capital of the South and the surrender of the South Vietnamese government. To this day Vietnam is known as the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, and the Communist Party still controls every aspect of the government. So yes, Vietnam was a defeat.

Ahem.

The Clinton administration was the benificiary of economic polices put into place by Bush Sr. Bill just had to sit in the chair and watch the money come in. Clinton got us involved in Kosovo to distract us from his interests in interns, and we bombed the Chinese embassy because of that.

The economic downturn that is associated with Bush Lite is due in large part to the near-recession we had after 9/11 and the continuing military expense in Iraq. Even with that, interest rates are low and the economy is expanding. We are still in sustained prosperity.

No further incidents of terrorist activity have taken place in the continental US while we have had troops on the ground. That single fact alone justifies our action in Iraq in my eyes. There have been terrorist incidents in Europe, but not here. I believe that our willingness to use force is viewed as a sign of strength by the Islamic extremists, while at the same time it is criticized as "reckless warmongering" and other things by those in the West. It seems to work, though. If Spain had a brigade or two in Bahgdad maybe there wouldn't have been an attack in Madrid.

Economic policies - actually, the budget surplus was largely due to the huge tax increase by the Democratic congress that was signed by Bush Sr. Of course, this was one of the main reason Bush Sr wasn't re-elected: Read My Lips...

Another reason for the economic prosperity of the 1990s was the opposing parties in Congress and the White House: the Republican Congress nerfed many of the loopy ideas of the White House and vise versa. Checks and balances ruled. When the Republicans ran the whole show there was no one to tell them they were driving the car off a cliff (certainly Bush was pleased to play navigator – with the map upside down) until, of course, they did. It was amusing to watch the self righteous Republicans self destruct by doing exactly what they ejected the self righteous Democrats for in 1994: incompetence, graft, corruption, and an insufferable sense of entitlement. Iraq did not help them, either.

Dude in wars people die! 3,000-4,000 is sad but nothing compare to other wars in the past. Every since after the Korean war was won, USA has been doing a half-ass job in wars. Basically trying to find a cheapest way to win. Vietnam was all about defensive. Not offensive like the Korean war. When you declare war…you don’t turn around can find the cheapest way to win...you find the most effective way to win no matter what the cost. Otherwise why brother declaring war? Wars are won by ideas and information first, and combat last. We had bad info stuff down our throats in Iraq. Also wars put countries into debt but put large corporations in riches!

Iraq is not the product of either the Democrats or the Republicans. It is the product of the Israeli lobby, who is pulling the strings on both parties and all the presidential candidates. Israel considered Iraq a threat to them, but they didn't have the wherewithal to take Iraq out themselves. So instead, they manipulate the U.S. into doing it for them. That's where this whole "WMD" and "Iraq is harboring Al Qaeda" baloney came from.

Oh by the way budget surplus ...were for that year or few years in the green. Dude don't you remember we have Trillions in OVERALL DEBT. Money isn't back by gold...it just currency...so governments just prints them. If they print too much...than inflation or the value or trust worthyness of the current drop sharply...the 5 dollars last week is worth $3 this week. That creates havok on economy. But if it depreciates a penny ever so often it's still good. Basically we all in a slow steady inflation of all currencies.
So after 1971...it not good save money...especially under a mattress...you better invest in stuff where 80% of the time you're sure to gain.

Now you're talking my language! Bravo to you for being a voice of reason... but now you might be able to be considered a conspiracy nut yourself for voicing that one!

Regardless of who went to war, and why (Although if Israel were that powerful I think they'd have been able to make use of Gulf War I back in the 90's when most of the world would have been quite willing to go kick Saddam's teeth right down his throat), blaming anyone for the sectarian killings, suicide bombings, and torture except for the individual murderers, bombers, and torturers is facile and doesn't work in the real world. The only person responsible for the individual's actions is the individual in question.