Jim Hoft has a good writeup on the report that President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair are preparing to announce upcoming “drastic” troop withdrawals from Iraq. Via The Australian:
US and British officials hope Britain’s 8000 troops in Iraq can be cut to 5000 by the end of the year and the US’s 133,000 troops to about 100,000. Iraqi security forces could be in charge of much of the country by the year’s end.
Buoyed by the formation of Iraq’s new unity Government at the weekend, senior officials travelling with Mr Blair said all foreign troops should be out of the country within four years.
Mr Blair is to hold further discussions on withdrawal at a White House summit with Mr Bush later this week.
In response to that report, Jim Hoft says, “Boy, it’s going to be interesting to see the reaction to this news! …I guess that means, we won, huh?”
I will likely catch some flack for this, but my response to Jim would be that not only have we won, but we won some time ago. In fact, I would argue that we won it back when President Bush strapped on that flight suit and landed on the aircraft carrier in front of the “Mission Accomplished” sign. There were many additional battles yet to be fought, and very sadly there were many more lives to be lost, but from that point on, instead of us fighting to win the war, we started fighting to keep from losing it. That is a very important point to make. Regrettably, many of those battles were ones fought here in the arena of public opinion.
Over the past three years, some Democrats have seemed determined to do whatever it took to see us lose in Iraq, whether it be by demoralizing the troops in harm’s way or calling for us to cut and run. Their efforts stand in stark contrast to those of the President and the military who have insisted all along that we were winning and that if we would stay the course until the country was stable enough, and the Iraqis ready to take back control, that victory would be ours. Don’t forget, there were some that declared we were losing in the earliest days in Afghanistan and in the sandstorms on the road to Baghdad. Some of those people will never, under any circumstances, admit that we have won. That is something that should not be lost on voters.
Update: Just to clarify my position, to say that we won long ago does not mean to say that we couldn’t still lose that win under certain circumstances. For example, if we were to cut and run (withdraw all troops immediately) the progress we have made in Iraq could be undone and the effort could result in what would constitute a loss. The following analogy might not be the best, but it is what immediately comes to mind. Let’s say Teams A and B are playing basketball. With two minutes to go in the game, Team A leads Team B by 40 points. Team A has effectively won the game. There could still be points scored by Team B, and Team A could still even suffer some injuries, but barring anything exceptional happening, the game has been won. But what if, with two minutes to go, Team A decided to send all their players home. Team A would lose by forfeiting the game. That is what I fear could happen in Iraq if Democrats had their way.
Great to see you at a new and improved venue Lorie! And yes… you are correct, we have won. I’d say I knew things would workout in the end after that first election in Jan 2005.
can’t wait until the alternative media matches the firepower of the msm. The day will come.
Yes, good news indeed. I am thinking that some things might be easier for Iraq forces alone. We’ll move further back and they’ll move forward – it is as it should be.
Let me be the first, please… It means Cindy Sheehan won.
Sorry, Lorie, but we’re both equally over the top on this one. History will not judge ending this war as a “win”, in any reasonable nation’s scorecard, nor will it judge Cindy Sheehan the winner.
When it comes to terrorists, I don’t feel any safer — do you?
And since none of us feel safer, the war on terrorism is far from over.
I sure as heck feel safer with G.W. Bush and Don Rumsfeld in charge than anyone Lee might support!
What were our goals going in? First and foremost, to depose Saddam Hussein and his Ba’athist murderers with finality. Secondly, to make Iraq a less threatening regime to its neighbors, and a less friendly regime to terrorists and other enemies of the US. Thirdly, to give Iraqis a chance to have a western-style democratic republic, which form of government is least threatening to neighboring nations and most subservient to its population, and which might serve as a model for other Middle Eastern Arab nations.
Hmmmm . . . three-for-three?
Were there, in fact, ANY other reasons?
Oh, yeah – I hear the plaintive cries of the moonbats: “OIL! OIL! NO BLOOD FOR OIL!”
Right you are, kiddies. That’s why Iraq is producing a million barrels a day LESS . . .
Lee wrote:
None of us? Lee, I’ll thank you to not attempt to speak for me.
I feel a hell of a lot safer than if we had not responded to the continuing menaces posed by Al Qaida in Afghanistan or Saddam Hussein’s obscene regime in Iraq. I feel a hell of a lot safer than if the United States had deferred to the United Nations or the “international community” to deal with the situation in their own way in their own sweet time. I feel a hell of a lot safer than if a Democrat had been elected president in 2000 or 2004.
Really Lee. Don’t try to project your cynicism on me.
And this “war on terror is far from over” is not a line that passes the “ha-ha test” coming from you.
The level of delusion here is astounding. It is obvious that the poster Lori is quite young, has not lived through much history. I recognize your kind. I saw you in 1969. You are very, very naive.
Oh, yeah – I hear the plaintive cries of the moonbats: “OIL! OIL! NO BLOOD FOR OIL!”
Posted by: Adjoran
I always found it ironic that the lefties adopted this chant given the fact the real “Blood for Oil” scenario was Saddam remaining in power.
Two ground invasions launched at Iraqi neighbors by Saddam and paid for by oil money kills over a million people.
Domestically, Saddam murders over 300,000 Iraqi citizens paid for by oil money.
During sanctions, UNICEF reported over 5000 deaths a month of mostly women and children because corrupt UN officials and Saddam were able to keep cash flowing into the regime with oil money but not those suffering. Clinton’s Secretary of State is on record saying this was acceptable.
France, China and Russia blasted Clinton over Operation Desert Fox. All had pending oil deals with Saddam and wanted sanctions lifted. (Lefty myth: that the world loved us more during the Clinton years.) Read the Operation Desert Fox reactions sometime.
Same thing happened leading up to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Oil deals took precedence over a removing a mass murdering terror kingpin.
Now we have the same exact situation going on with Iran where members of the Security Council have even taken sanctions off the table because of oil money.
The lefties will tout 2500 dead Americans and 30,000 Iraqi civilians but do the math above. The lefties are the real “Blood for Oil” advocates. But it is easier to teach a true believing lefty to chant rather than teach them to follow the real blood money flow.
oldlm — a tad presumptuous, and wrong, of you. Lorie graduated from college (N. C. State) in 1988, which makes her about 40. Is it that hard to accept that people can have a different perspective than you?
oldelm:
Maybe she just seems that way to you because you are all crusty and jaded. 😛
To me, it seems Iraq is going the right way, and that we are coming to the end of our military involvement. It will happen slowly, there will be no parades. It is the beginning of the end of the “long, hard slog”. It may take four years or so, but the light at the end of the tunnel is now clearly visible.
I do think Lorie is wrong about one thing:
As a general proposition, voters don’t care what administration critics think, except those who are inclined to oppose Bush & Co. My impression is that those people will see Bush as a bad president even if Iraq becomes as successful as Japan in the next 10 years.
There are a surprising number of war supporters who somehow figured we could go into Iraq, win and leave in a couple of years. Sounds silly to me, but they are out there, and they will always think the administration bungled the effort. C’est la vie.
When it comes to terrorists, I don’t feel any safer — do you?
I feel MUCH safer considering there hasn’t been a successful terroist attack on the US or its interests since 9-11. That’s the longest stretch in decades.
But I must say, it may be hard to say “we won”, since Murtha et. al. has been clamoring for withdrawl for a while now. Even though this isn’t the cut-and-run they demand, they will still spin this as a victory, “See, through our pressure, Bush is beginning to bring the troops home.” Even though published plans show the drawdown to be happening right when it should.
The level of delusion here is astounding. It is obvious that the poster Lori is quite young, has not lived through much history. I recognize your kind. I saw you in 1969. You are very, very naïve.
Posted by: oldelm
Or this…….
The level of delusion here is astounding. It is obvious that the poster oldelm is quite young, has not lived through much history. I recognize your kind. I saw you in 1939. You are very, very naïve.
Posted by WW2 Era Americans
I am expecting the MSM will frame this as a reaction to Bush and Blairs domestic poll numbers.
Example
Today in Iraq; 12 die in sectarian violence in and a car an IED injured three Marines in Karballh, meanwhile, the Bush administration has announced a significant reduction in troops in Iraq to be undetaken over the next few months, here to discuss these developments is our expert _________
Question for pundit: “They have resisted withdrawing troops for years, why now?
Answer: Well,(insert name of anchor here), with rock bottom poll numbers and an election only months away, some are saying this has more to do with the situation in the US and Britain than than any newfound stability in Iraq.
blah,blah,blah
Answer: Well,(insert name of anchor here), with rock bottom poll numbers and an election only months away, some are saying this has more to do with the situation in the US and Britain than than any newfound stability in Iraq.
Posted by: Frank O
The predictability is too easy. I knew that you knew what the left knew that the left wing pundits knew the talking points in advance. I think we all knew that.
You should bookmark your post to show we knew that we know ahead what they are going to say.
Know what I mean?
Oh Lee …
Considering you’re the guy who thinks that Saddam Hussein should still be in power in Baghdad, I really doubt many people share your idea of what it means to “feel safer”.
Yep, beat a retreat and declare victory. That’s what I said would happen — so, in a sense, this is a victory for me.
I think the terms for victory included a stable democracy in Iraq — now open your filthy digital pie holes and deny it; that’s where you’re at. When the crash comes — and it will — you can always blame the left. (And of course you will, Bushies: it’s your only trick.)
Lost integrety on the world scene, millions more Muslims dedicated to Jihad, 2K+ troops dead, “untold” civilian losses (told to the man, to the woman, to the child, but denied by neocons) — yeah, this is a victory all right. Our grandchildren’s grandchildren will be paying off the debt for this boondoggle — complete freaking victory.
Congratulations. And enjoy the election.
It may be problematic whether Americans feel safer now than they did over 3 years ago, but is certain the Iraqis themselves do not. I am sure Lorie Bryrd’s nostrum (if it be serious) to the Iraqis, that’ the war for freedom loving peoples’on their behalf, has long been won would be welcome news to them. But if victory is so self-evident to Lorie why hasn’t Dubya (who has said that he was going to concentrate on Iraq the remainder of his term) made but one brief Thanksgiving photo-op morning visit there carrying a plastic turkey? Tony Blair went to Basra for the fourth or fifth time this week and he is only the First Minister, not the Commander-in Chief or, as probable, could it be that Bush doesn’t feel he would be safe even in the Green Zone?..The storming of the Bastille on July 14, 1789 was the easy part of the French Revolution and equally prematurely celebrated ,as Saddam’s fall was in April 2003, but the consequent reign of terror which engulfed France and begot Naploeon and the ensuing conflicts in that region, were the enduring legacies.
There are a surprising number of war supporters who somehow figured we could go into Iraq, win and leave in a couple of years. Sounds silly to me, but they are out there, and they will always think the administration bungled the effort. Truzenzuzex
I think his name is Dick Cheney.
I feel MUCH safer considering there hasn’t been a successful terroist attack on the US or its interests since 9-11. TomB
This means that US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are not US interests. It also means that the US is not interested in Spain, Britain, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Israel, Lebanon, and other nations where terrorists have attacked. I guess the US is becoming isolationists like Bush warned against.
Sorry, I meant to say “US interest outside a war zone”, seeing as how that is what the military is there for.
And if you don’t understand the meaning of the term “US interests” in a geopolitical sense, you shouldn’t be in this discussion. No, bombing Spanish or British mass transit is not an attack on “US interests”. It doesn’t mean we aren’t interested (duh), it means we weren’t directly attacked as a country (US flaged vessel, embassy, etc.)
Perhaps you could speculate as to why we haven’t been attacked since 9-11?
Yep, beat a retreat and declare victory. That’s what I said would happen — so, in a sense, this is a victory for me.
Of course, what a great rhetorical gimmick you’ve got there. If we keep the troop levels the same or higher, its a quagmire, a failure, and you attack Bush. If we start to drawdown (as has been planned for over a year), we are retreating, a failure, and you attack Bush.
Is there any scenario which you envision where you DON’T attack Bush?
Oh and BTW, you people might want to recheck your talking points. Now its the neocons who are “bedwetters” for worrying about terrorism. Bush is just trying to scare people.
Yep We won!!
The level of delusion here is astounding. It is obvious that the poster oldelm is quite young, has not lived through much history. I recognize your kind. I saw you in 1939. You are very, very naïve.
Posted by WW2 Era Americans
“It amazes me the ignorance of americans and WW2, Neville Chamberline and “peace in our time” that they look like absolute fools in history books for while Winston Churchill goes down as a lion
sean nyc/aa:
Really? I don’t know, it just seems to me this might be a good time for a link or cite, don’t you?
Nah. Ad hominem is so much easier and more fun, no Googling or excess typing.
Maybe it’s just me, but I though the primary mission of the GWOT as far as U.S. involvement is concerned is to protect U.S. citizens. You seem to be pointing to the failure of other countries’ internal security to protect their own as a failure of our policy. Let’s meditate on this for a moment… Hmmm, a non-sequitur… Liberals oppose the war, don’t want our troops deployed abroad to protect us, yet somehow it is a failure of our efforts to protect ourselves when other countries are unable to protect their own citizens. Ergo, 1 + 2 = Bushitler.
Well, now I get it. It isn’t a failure of logic, it is a failure of cogitation.
Its an escape from reason and a guilt complex that is the mental disease that is liberalism.
Lorie Byrd, you are indeed correct in stating “not only have we won, but we won some time ago. In fact, I would argue that we won it back when President Bush strapped on that flight suit and landed on the aircraft carrier in front of the “Mission Accomplished” sign.”
A soldier would rephrase your next statement as follows; “There were many additional battles yet to be fought, and fortunately few lives were lost.” That is how Iraq is seen through a soldiers eyes.
In regards to US Forces in Iraq, @ 100,000 by year end is about right. It will be at @ 70,000 in the second half of 2007. The preperation of reserve units has been cut back and that only indicates that a drawdown is in progress. You can take the 100k and 70k numbers to the bank.
Well yeah we won, kind of. I mean if you are keeping score, it’s U.S.A 2,500 Iraq 30,000.
See this is kind of like golf, the lowest score wins.And with this kind of lead, it’s time to just run out the clock on those camel jockeys.
Right guys?
Oh, and TomB, I wouldn’t use time lines for a success on the war on terror if I were you. Eight years! Do you know the significance of that? It’s the time between attacks on our shores prior to 911. So let’s wait until at least 2008 before we declare ourselves safer.
Anyway, I say bring back the draft, this way everybody can put their life where their mouth is.
I mean if you are keeping score, it’s U.S.A 2,500 Iraq 30,000.
Of course, to arrive at these numbers, you have to ignore all the people who would have died under Hussein’s brutal rule. But that’s OK, he let them fly kites and stuff. Your moral relativism stinks.
It’s the time between attacks on our shores prior to 911
I guess we should just piss on the graves of all those people who died in the Khobar Towers, USS Cole, the Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, etc. After all, they weren’t really Americans, were they?
adjoran asks “what were our goals going in?”, then gives three reasons: to depose Saddam, to make Iraq less of a threat in the region, and to allow the Iraqis to have a “western-style” democratic government. These are actually the second set of goals, the ones that were trotted out after the first set proved to be wrong. The war was sold to US as a pre-emptive strike to deter an “iminent” (not my word) threat involving WMDs. We knew where they were! You know, around Tikrit, north, south, maybe east/west, who knows! Mushroom clouds! Saddam =terror=Al Queda=9/11! Fight them over there, etc, blah, blah.
When these turned out not to be true the next wave of mass delusion/hypnosis was unleashed. We’re there to spread democracy, aren’t we better of without Saddam? Iraq yearns for freedom, we’ll be welcomed as liberators. I guess we’re still waiting for that one. Didn’t someone say it isn’t about nation building? That’s right, it was Bush himself.
The region, by most accounts, is less stable, Iraq has about as much chance of becoming a true functioning democracy as Bush has of winning the Nobel Peace Prize. OK, we deposed Saddam, but can anyone say that Iraq is really better off and that we are more safe as a result. I just don’t see any evidence to support it.
It seems delusional to suggest that the US has, in any objective terms, WON anything in Iraq.Thousands of US men and women are dead and wounded; for what? Iraq is paralyzed by sectarian violence, the US has less support and fewer allies than ever and the Middle East remains an unstable powder keg, ready to blow the foundation of the world structure as we know it.
We WON?? Think again.
So let’s wait until at least 2008 before we declare ourselves safer.
Oh and BTW F-N, what’s it feel like, I mean really feel like, way down in the deep, dark reaches of your soul, to have to hope for a terrorist attack on your country to legitimize your political views?
The war was sold to US as a pre-emptive strike to deter an “iminent” (not my word) threat involving WMDs.
How may times has this lie been debunked?
grouchy,
You certainly seem to be expert on “mass delusion/hypnosis” since you clearly suffer from the left’s virulent strain of it.
TomB,
Don’t worry about field-n…, he thinks that 2001 plus 8 years is 2008. This just about sums up his mental ability.
I’m going to disagree with one point raised above: there has been one terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. On July 4, 2002, a gunman shot up the El Al ticket counter at LAX, killing two and wounding four before an El Al security guard shot and killed him.
Apart from that, though, I sure as hell feel a lot safer today than I did 9/12.
J.
Groucho:
Go here. Read. Cogitate.
Go here. Read. Cogitate
You forgot to mention that the standard of living in Iraq has never been better (notwithstanding the terrorist violence), the country has elected a unity government recognized worldwide, internal security is improving daily and tens of thousands of terrorists have been killed or captured.
I admit, I see the glass as half full. You can’t even seem to locate a glass at all.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile – hoping it will eat him last.
W. Churchill
How is it opponents of the war constantly make the charge that because of their love for peace and justice it was wrong to get rid of a murderous dictator? It is just the most obscene form of real politik I have ever witnessed.
Just trying to throw my 2 cents into the mix, amigos; no reason to get all defensive, but thanks anyway for the diagnosis.
Tom: I agree, the claim that Saddam and all of his WMDs presented an iminent threat has most certainly been thoroughly debunked.
Truz, Saddam was an evil, sick, ruthless dictator, I get it. But who made it our job to get rid of him? Are 2400 dead Americans worth the price? You can conjure up as many links and excerpts as you want, but you can’t prove that he was a direct threat to US. No one can, because it simply wasn’t the case. And I guess it’s a moot point now anyway; your version vs mine. I think there’s just as much evidence that suggests the standard of living in Iraq is not better than it’s ever been. Less water, less electricity, less oil, etc. As far as the govenment goes, let’s wait 20-30 years. Anyone can recognize a govenment; question is, can it govern. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.
Tom: I agree, the claim that Saddam and all of his WMDs presented an iminent threat has most certainly been thoroughly debunked.
Christ you moonbats are pathetic:
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. -G W Bush
How do you expect anybody outside your own fever swamps to believe anything you say when you lie through your teeth?
Tom,
debunk-“to show the sham and falseness of”
No WMDs, repeat, no WMDs found. Debunked
Thanks for the kind words, though.
TomB
Is there any scenario which you envision where you DON’T attack Bush?
In a word, no.
Well, let’s think about that for a minute. I would never accuse him of competence, nor would I “attack” him if he acknowledged that permission to torture prisoners in Abu Graib and Gitmo came from the top. If he wanted to say, “Excuse me for impersonating a president,” I would excuse him.
Right now, I excuse him — and you — of depth of insight, quality of education, breadth of knowledge, personal integrity, honesty, intelligence, love of and commitment to the constitution of the United States and the legacy of 230 years of American history and foreign policy — I don’t know, maybe he’s kind to children and dogs.
Hope this helps. Let me know if you have any more questions; you seem to be particularly needy…
debunk-“to show the sham and falseness of”
Your comment:
The war was sold to US as a pre-emptive strike to deter an “iminent” (not my word) threat involving WMDs.
THAT. IS. A. LIE.
But thanks for playing…
In a word, no.
And there it is, a clinical definition of BDS.
In all its glory.
Given that the aim was to secure Saddam’s massive stockpile of WMDs, the unnecessary war was won before it was unnecessarily begun.
Winning peace and security in the chaotic aftermath is another matter, and unfortunately, we don’t have enough time or lives to spare to win that war. The Iraqis will have to do it themselves when we are gone, and they will only achieve that the same way that Saddam did; brutally.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile – hoping it will eat him last.
W. Churchill
Yes I know I already quoted it once, but it should be repeated. Several times.
Everyone agrees that “Saddam was an evil, sick, ruthless dictator”. But see it is okay, since he wasn’t a direct threat to us, just those little brown-skinned muslims who deserve what they get anyway. Besides, he didn’t have WMD, he just wanted WMD. Who doesn’t? So what if he invaded two countries. So what if he manufactured nerve gas and used it on his people. Why is that our problem, right? Let’s just hold our noses and buy the oil, right? Blood for oil is fine as long as it isn’t our blood. Isn’t that really the point being made by opponents of the war?
Forget WMD, forget all the BS that gets posted about Bush. What is the answer here? All you great lovers of peace, what have you got to say? That we don’t care if Saddam killed his 300,000 of his own people and threatened others? Why then do we care about Bosnia and Rawanda? How was that our problem? What about Darfour? What about the Indian Ocean Tsunami? How are those our problem? Why do we bother? They are not like us, and probably wouldn’t be very grateful anyway.
Assume there was no direct threat from Saddam. Ever. Was it worth it? Whatever your political belief, if you don’t pause, even for a moment, to think about that question, you are not a rational moral human being.
Are 2,400 American worth the price? Was it worth the billions spent? I’ll be honest, I don’t know. Bush has rolled the dice to change the fundamentals of the equation, to potentially alter human history in a profound way. It was an astoundingly brave and ultimately a moral decision on his part. Yet the posers of morality attack him relentlessly.
We’ve won, in that he have given the Iraqis a chance. That was all we ever could have hoped to accomplish. They can elect another strong man. They can elect terrorists. They can evolve into another Turkey or another Iran. It is up to them, not us. I wish them well. All we can do, all we could ever do, is give them a chance for something different, something better.
Hey Shiek, -at least your name is appropriate-nice to see you can count. -And I actually meant when your frat boy pres. leaves office- you will need to be able to count to add up all the cost in dollars and innocent American lives frat boy has sacrificed for this farcical, and preposterous war.
And no, TomB I would never piss on their graves, but flowers would be nice, as would reading comprehension for you. I am pretty sure I said on “our shores.” But I have learned long ago not to quibble about factual quotes with a republican gang member, who is so immersed in the Kool-Aide, that if you spit, all we would need to do is add sugar to make a drink.
Big D,
All you great lovers of peace, what have you got to say?
As a great lover of peace, I feel somewhat compelled to answer a few of your questions. I can’t speak for all great lovers of peace on this one, as the reasons for not supporting the latest excursion into Iraq are many and varied, but the following is my take on the situation.
That we don’t care if Saddam killed his 300,000 of his own people and threatened others?
Personally, I was sickened when I saw the results of the gas attack on the citizens of Hallabja on the news back in 1988. I couldn’t believe that we actually supported the monster that was doing this to his people, but support him we did, and support him we continued to do. I was also a little disppointed to watch the promises of support we gave to the marsh arabs if they rose up against Saddam after the Gulf war be fulfilled in the form of verbal support only, but that’s what we did, and they paid the price.
Frankly, yes, I cared that he was killing his own people, and I cared that we did nothing more than watch, but still, I couldn’t in all good faith see how bombing Iraq shitless and invading them decades later was going to bring any of those people back. It seems to me that those lives are now being used as a retroactive justification for the war now the primary justification has proven to be an empty mistake.
Why then do we care about Bosnia and Rawanda? How was that our problem? What about Darfour? What about the Indian Ocean Tsunami? How are those our problem? Why do we bother? They are not like us, and probably wouldn’t be very grateful anyway.
In Darfur we have an actual oppertunity to stop mass killings and save many lives right now, but unfortunately no longer have the manpower to do it. Maybe we’ll use the deaths happening now as an excuse to invade Sudan in years to come; that wouldn’t surprise me.
Are 2,400 American worth the price? Was it worth the billions spent? I’ll be honest, I don’t know. Bush has rolled the dice to change the fundamentals of the equation, to potentially alter human history in a profound way. It was an astoundingly brave and ultimately a moral decision on his part. Yet the posers of morality attack him relentlessly.
The thing that concerns me most is that Bush doesn’t appear to have ever had a clue that things could get ugly if Saddam was removed. He expected the newly freed Iraqis to put aside any differences and form a stable democracy straight away, ready to foster a ‘domino effect’ across the middle-east (though that laughable suggestion rarely gets mentioned now). He simply didn’t seem to realize that Iraq was a loose collection of people separated by tribal and sectarian differences, ripe for foreign terrorists to come in and drive a wedge between them. Iraq now has a government dominated by groups more akin to its Shia neighbour than the kind of secular government under which true freedom would flourish. What would we do several years down the road if Iraq becomes increasingly allied with Iran, or indeed seeks its own nuclear weapons capacity? Time for another regime change? Bush and his advisors didn’t really think this whole thing through properly; it’s been quite obvious that they’ve been winging it for the last couple of years hoping a bit of stability will return. I just hope things work out for the Iraqi people, and that those that lost loved ones over the last few years forgive us for experimenting with their country.
Lol! If you want to call it a ‘win,’ go ahead. But, I have this Rose……
THat is one of the dumbest things I have read.
per binnster
So… stopping the Hussein regime from mass murder, genocide, destabilizing the mideast, pursuing NBC weapons and funding palestinian terrorists when they killed Isreali civilians (not to mention firing on our planes that were enforcing the peace treaty, and trying to assassinate a US President) was bad. Bad because it left us unable to stop mass murder and genocide in Sudan.
OooooKay
scsiwuzzy,
So… stopping the Hussein regime from mass murder, genocide, destabilizing the mideast, pursuing NBC weapons and funding palestinian terrorists when they killed Isreali civilians (not to mention firing on our planes that were enforcing the peace treaty, and trying to assassinate a US President) was bad. Bad because it left us unable to stop mass murder and genocide in Sudan.
Er, no. You see, we didn’t stop Saddam from commiting acts of mass-murder or genocide at the times he was commiting those acts; we waited until over a decade later and then invaded under another pretex. What we have done has actually destabilised the middle-east further than it already was. That’s why it’s bad, moron.