The War in Iraq

[Captain Seafort]

The "Saddam was a horrible dictator" makes no sense whatsoever. There are dozens of other nations with horrible dictators leading them

Failure to remove all dictators does not make the removal of one a bad thing. It's only a small improvement, but it's an improvement nonetheless.

without all the post-war nastiness that's occurred in Iraq.

I suspect you overestimate the competence of the current US government - the root cause of the problem was politicians in Washington telling the professionals how to do their jobs and I doubt that would go away if a different target was selected.

If anyone actually thinks that the Bush administration cares about Democracy in Iraq or removing a dictator, they're out to lunch.

Of course, but if the life of your average Iraq improves as a result of George W's quest for oil/middle-eatern bases/blood feud with Saddam, then I'm not going to complain, even if it is an incidental side-effect.

[I Am Spartacus]

Failure to remove all dictators does not make the removal of one a bad thing. It's only a small improvement, but it's an improvement nonetheless.

What business is it of yours to decide what government other nations have? None. The Republican Party used to understand this, they used to be the party of peace and non-interference.

And leaving Saddam in place would have been a better option than what's happened. More Iraqis have died in the last fifteen years as a result of Western action than anything Saddam ever did. I'd say we're the genocidal maniacs, not Saddam.

I suspect you overestimate the competence of the current US government - the root cause of the problem was politicians in Washington telling the professionals how to do their jobs and I doubt that would go away if a different target was selected.

Hardly. There are plenty of other nations that literally would have welcomed Americans with open arms. Burma springs to mind.

Of course, but if the life of your average Iraq improves as a result of George W's quest for oil/middle-eatern bases/blood feud with Saddam, then I'm not going to complain, even if it is an incidental side-effect.

But that's not going to happen, and never was, and pretending it will is just naive.

[I Am Spartacus]

Double post.

[Captain Seafort]

What business is it of yours to decide what government other nations have?

Saddam wasn't exactly put in place by the majority of the Iraqi people. While it wasn't the reason Bush decided to invade, the ideal of democracy remains a sound basis for government. Besides which the Iraqi oil-fields did need to be opened up again. There's too little of the stuff left to have a massive deposite like the one under Iraq sitting idle.

And leaving Saddam in place would have been a better option than what's happened.

With hindsight, probably. However that's with the experience of the past four years - pre-war, in early 2003, there was every reason to believe that the removal of Saddam would result in a significant improvement of the average Iraqi's lot, if only because it would allow the sanctions to be lifted.

Hardly. There are plenty of other nations that literally would have welcomed Americans with open arms. Burma springs to mind.

As did the Iraqis immidiately following the invasion. That goodwill was squandered as the insurgency grew and the coalition's promised rapid restoration of the civil infrastucture failed to materialise.

But that's not going to happen, and never was, and pretending it will is just naive.

Now, no its not happening, but to say that it never was is to overstate the point. Yes establishing a secure, stable, democratic Iraq would have been difficult, but it was not impossible, and that possibility was squandered by the mistakes made immidiately following the previous regime's fall.

[I Am Spartacus]

Saddam wasn't exactly put in place by the majority of the Iraqi people. While it wasn't the reason Bush decided to invade, the ideal of democracy remains a sound basis for government. Besides which the Iraqi oil-fields did need to be opened up again. There's too little of the stuff left to have a massive deposite like the one under Iraq sitting idle.

So you support committing war crimes to gain access to supplies of oil that you originally had access to in the first place?

With hindsight, probably. However that's with the experience of the past four years - pre-war, in early 2003, there was every reason to believe that the removal of Saddam would result in a significant improvement of the average Iraqi's lot, if only because it would allow the sanctions to be lifted.

Anyone with a brain stem knew that no one could simply invade and set up a functioning democracy in just a few years. Democracies are homegrown institutions. You have to have been on acid to honestly believe it was possible.

As did the Iraqis immidiately following the invasion. That goodwill was squandered as the insurgency grew and the coalition's promised rapid restoration of the civil infrastucture failed to materialise.

No, it didn't. The Iraqis did not welcome you as liberators. I thought only Dick Cheney believed otherwise.

Now, no its not happening, but to say that it never was is to overstate the point. Yes establishing a secure, stable, democratic Iraq would have been difficult, but it was not impossible, and that possibility was squandered by the mistakes made immidiately following the previous regime's fall.

Yes, it was impossible, and we all knew it. Invading a country that is a hodge podge of ethnic and religious groups with a history of murdering each other just wasn't going to turn out well. Everyone except those in the Bush administration, and those who bought into their sales pitch, knew this. There was simply no way to make it work.

[thatcha]

Yes, it was impossible, and we all knew it. Invading a country that is a hodge podge of ethnic and religious groups with a history of murdering each other just wasn't going to turn out well.

Italy, Germany and the United Kingdom. three countries that have their origins in a multi ethnic,multi faith background, all of which (especially the scots/english) had a habit of killing each other. yet three of the richest countries in the world.


It was said above, the iraqi army shoudlnt have been disbanded so quickly.

now not that i would want to suggest that the US amry cant do peace keeping,tho it cant and i have, i could point out that a few years before the british Army and the Royal navy/marines, did a little intervention in searra leone, a county that was in the middle of a bloody civil war and all that jazz,and well.....its not so much now.

Could it maybe be that the US Army has a trick or two to learn from an Army that you know policed the worlds largest EVER empire? Including Iraq incidently.....

And as for whos business it is to say who shoudl and shoudl not be leading a country that isnt your own,well if you dont think you have a right to, you really shouldnt be making ANY comment on foreign leaders. War is indeed the extenstion of politics (or diplomacy) by other means.

[CluckyB]

If you ask me, its a badly posed question.

Do I agree with going into war with Iraq? Yes, at the time we had intelligence suggesting Iraq was a threat to national security. On top of that, Saddam was a ruthless dictator who needed to be ousted from power.

Do I agree with the execution of the war in Iraq? No so much. We did not go into Iraq with any long term plans despite it being a long term situation. After all, we still have troops in Germany. We should have expected resistant and planned for it ahead of time, not basked in the success of early achievements and act like it was "Mission Accomplished". But instead, we are stuck with a home base support that has been corroded out from under our president by the leftest news media, after the next set of elections we are probably going to see our nation wave a white flag and withdraw, effectively making the sacrifices of so many troops worthless. I still think, despite the fact that mistakes are should be made, we should continue the war until succes has finally been achieved. Because if we gave up on Vietnam, and then give up on Iraq, America is never going to have any milliarty success anywhere every again. The blueprint will be out, "Resist until the Americans back hope whine and give up."

[Captain Seafort]

If you ask me, its a badly posed question.

Do I agree with going into war with Iraq? Yes, at the time we had intelligence suggesting Iraq was a threat to national security. On top of that, Saddam was a ruthless dictator who needed to be ousted from power.

Do I agree with the execution of the war in Iraq? No so much. We did not go into Iraq with any long term plans despite it being a long term situation. After all, we still have troops in Germany. We should have expected resistant and planned for it ahead of time, not basked in the success of early achievements and act like it was "Mission Accomplished".

Agree with this bit. The flaw in the basic plan was the assumption that "we get to Baghdad, demonstrate that we won and everything will be peachy.

But instead, we are stuck with a home base support that has been corroded out from under our president by the leftest news media, after the next set of elections we are probably going to see our nation wave a white flag and withdraw, effectively making the sacrifices of so many troops worthless.

Whisky. Tago. Foxtrot.

How on earth does concluding that Iraq is unsalvagable and staying will only cost more lives among the troops stationed there for no effect equate to "waving the white flag"? Iraq has got to the stage where some areas (ie. MND Southeast) are relatively stable, to the extent that the best solution would be to withdraw coalition troops and hand over to the Iraqis, given that while the insurgency is still ongoing, its intensity has dropped to a level where the Iraqi forces can deal with it. The central areas are going to pieces, in the middle of a civil war, and trying to butt into other peoples civil wars is generally a very bad idea. Get out, let the place split into three separate countries, and congratulate yourselves on making the best of a bad situation.

Out of curiousity, since when did America have any left-wing news organisations?

I still think, despite the fact that mistakes are should be made, we should continue the war until succes has finally been achieved. Because if we gave up on Vietnam, and then give up on Iraq, America is never going to have any milliarty success anywhere every again. The blueprint will be out, "Resist until the Americans back hope whine and give up."

While superficially Vietnam and Iraq appear similar, your assertion that pulling out of Iraq would be similar to the withdrawal from Vietnam does not hold water. Vietnam, by the conclusion of Vietnamisation in 1972/73 was pretty much won, a victory that was thrown away by a refusal to continue to provide the requisite technical and heavy air support to the ARVN. Iraq may be in a similar situation in the Kurdish and MND Southwest areas (ie controllable by local forces), but the centre isn't, and retention of US troops in that area is barely making a difference to the ongoing civil war - as demonstrated by the continuing death rate of 2-3 troops per day, and several times that injured.

[Sionnach Glic]

"Leftest news media"?

Since when did America have one of those?

[DSG2k]

"Leftest news media"?

Since when did America have one of those?

Either you're very liberal, or else you don't watch the news much.

Our media's been liberal for a long time. It shouldn't be surprising. Even the BBC has been coming forward confessing its leftward bias to some extent, albeit with prodding.

The first time I noticed it was during one of the Clinton elections when a commentator said, as election results seemed to be pointing toward a Clinton win, that "this is a great day for America".

After that, the entrenched idea that the folks on the news are just saying the news and what everybody thinks started to break down. Their version of "what everybody thinks" is often "what I think" or "what we think in the newsroom", and not "what the folks you know think". And that goes along with their version of what the news is.

Just keep an eye out for it, and you can't fail to miss it. Just note how many times pejorative terms are applied to Republicans and the President versus how that doesn't happen with the Democrats.

It's just the way they roll.

[Captain Seafort]

Either you're very liberal, or else you don't watch the news much.

Our media's been liberal for a long time. It shouldn't be surprising. Even the BBC has been coming forward confessing its leftward bias to some extent, albeit with prodding.

Ah, so FOX and CNN are liberal are they? Got any evidence or are you just making unsupporting assertions. How is the political stance of the BBC at all relevent to a discussion of US broadcasters?

The first time I noticed it was during one of the Clinton elections when a commentator said, as election results seemed to be pointing toward a Clinton win, that "this is a great day for America".

Do you have a source for this? If so please provide it and demonstrate why this demonstrates "liberal bias".

Just keep an eye out for it, and you can't fail to miss it. Just note how many times pejorative terms are applied to Republicans and the President versus how that doesn't happen with the Democrats.

More unsupported assetions I see. Please provide specific examples rather than vague assertions such as "it shouldn't be surprising" and "you can't fail to miss it" (the latter of which is a double-negative BTW).

[Sionnach Glic]

Either you're very liberal, or else you don't watch the news much.

I'm Irish, we get a few US news networks over here, most of which is CNN style. I doubt anyone could call them liberal.

[Granitehewer]

Fox News is ultra conservatist esp the boisterous and pugnacious ''o'reilly factor'', jingoistly flag waving, hispanophobic and far too americocentric to the detriment of the worlds' remaining 193 countries.
To me this is incongruent, because all of the americans that i have had the pleasure to meet , have been open minded, tolerant,well balanced people...

[DSG2k]

Either you're very liberal, or else you don't watch the news much.

Our media's been liberal for a long time. It shouldn't be surprising. Even the BBC has been coming forward confessing its leftward bias to some extent, albeit with prodding.

Ah, so FOX and CNN are liberal are they? Got any evidence or are you just making unsupporting assertions. How is the political stance of the BBC at all relevent to a discussion of US broadcasters?

It's entrenched in most journalism. Fox News breaks right, obviously, but CNN could never be considered a conservative news source. Ted Turner certainly doesn't think it is . . . his statement regarding Fox News at some event was that it was okay for the conservatives to have their own news channel, since "we have ours", or words to that effect. I listened to it on the radio.

They might be slightly right of the AP, for instance, but that isn't saying anything at all.

The first time I noticed it was during one of the Clinton elections when a commentator said, as election results seemed to be pointing toward a Clinton win, that "this is a great day for America".

Do you have a source for this? If so please provide it and demonstrate why this demonstrates "liberal bias".

It was Tim Russert, sitting with Brokaw as I recall, on NBC. As for why it demonstrates liberal bias, one hardly has to ask. Heck, just compare his ebullient mood during the Clinton victories with his somber mood during the Bush victories. It was quite telling.

Just keep an eye out for it, and you can't fail to miss it. Just note how many times pejorative terms are applied to Republicans and the President versus how that doesn't happen with the Democrats.

More unsupported assetions I see.

Watch the freakin' news.

Please provide specific examples rather than vague assertions such as "it shouldn't be surprising" and "you can't fail to miss it"

You can start with something like this, which is simply the first catalog site I found.

Here's a little more. This too.

The presence of Jonathan Alter and Keith Olbermann as news commentators and anchors certainly doesn't disprove liberal bias, since those two break pretty far left.

Heck, just recall Chris Matthews in the Republican presidential debate asking “Jack Abramoff, Mark Foley, Duke Cunningham in prison for bribes, just last month FBI raids of two Republican members of congress – what’s with your party and all this corruption?”

As if William Jefferson, Harry Reid, Feinstein, and the others don't exist. You just don't hear about them much. Guess why?

Zogby pollsters, commonly leaning left in their political questions, nevertheless found that Americans view the media as liberally biased by a ratio of more than 2 to 1, meaning that your assertions to the contrary probably put you in the minority, as I suggested.

(the latter of which is a double-negative BTW).

No, it isn't. But even if it were, complaining about grammar is hardly the way to win debate points.

[Captain Seafort]

You want to provide links that claim left wing bias? Two can play that game.

Whitewashing administration cock-ups

Right-about-turn, and not a peep from CNN

What party were these crooks from? CNN didn't say

Really complimentary about the Dems aren't they?

Mentions accusations, doesn't mention the refutation.

Just keep an eye out for it, and you can't fail to miss it. Just note how many times pejorative terms are applied to Republicans and the President versus how that doesn't happen with the Democrats.

More unsupported assetions I see.

Watch the freakin' news.

I do - the Beeb. Lots of quotes about us handing over to the Iraqis later this year, lots about how your surge is working, nothing about how the casualty rate since the surge has been the worst since the war.

Zogby pollsters, commonly leaning left in their political questions, nevertheless found that Americans view the media as liberally biased by a ratio of more than 2 to 1, meaning that your assertions to the contrary probably put you in the minority, as I suggested.

Truth is not determined by the number of adherents. That includes the collective opinion of a consensus. If everyone on Earth believed that 1+1=3, there would be consensus. However, the consensus opinion would be wrong.

Argumentum ad populum.