Bush lost the Iraqi war in 2003.

[Ravy]

Well, not exactly lost. How can you lose something when you have not set a goal for winning?

But using TODAY's goal, a democratic governament in Iraq, and an army that can defend itself, that goal was lost on May 23, 2003.

That was the day that Paul Bremmer disolved the old Iraqi army. It is believed that many of these ex-army are now the "insurgents" that our brave troops are forced to fight today.

Given today's goal, it would have been MUCH cheaper, in both dollars and lives to keep paying the soldiers after the fall of Baghdad and placed them under command of the coalition forces, to be transitioned to the Iraqi government when it was formed.

Granted, this wasn't the greatest army in the world, but it could hold it's own (and more) in the region. Our main force could have been drastically reduced the day they formed the provisional government.

The next time you hear how we "must" train Iraq's troops, think about how Bush f*cked away the ones they had.

[forintegrity]

1. Bush lost the war when it became a mere thought in his pea brain

He's a LOOSER!

[Warpy]

2. What disgusts me is how easily he could have won it.

All he had to do is hire Iraqi contractors for the rebuilding, put the Iraqis back to work as quickly as possible. give them paychecks and some hope for a better future.

Instead, he went in there full of Hollywood cowboy arrogance, the same attitude he had to the US government played out in Iraq: if they worked for Clinton they had to go, if they worked for Hussein they had to go, leaving the country with no police or military. Using the country as a combination corporate feeding trough and neocon economic laboratory kept the Iraqis idled by 70% unemployment, no money coming in to their families, and no hope for anything better, as all public properties were either looted or "privatized."

Now, we're stuck exactly where we were 35 years ago, propping up a puppet government in a country that doesn't want us there and that wants to finish its own civil war, thank you very much and get out of the way. All that remains is for someone to unify the fighters enough to kick us out, and we will not like the government that arises.

The arrogance, ignorance, and headstrong stupidity of this bunch never ceases to amaze me. They failed to learn the lesson of Vietnam because they all sat it out, cheering the war from the sidelines and making their fortunes off it. Now we hear them repeating the words of Nixon, that more men, bombs, and bullets will win this thing as we train them to prop up their puppet government so we can leave with "honor."

Well, that time is long gone. The best we can do for these people is just LEAVE. Yes, they'll finish their civil war, but they'll do that whether or not we're still there. All the US is doing now is prolonging the agony while teaching these folks that we can never be trusted, that we're far more brutal than the worst leader they ever experienced.

[drdtroit]

3. I believe that the whole debacle is right on plan.

There was never any intent to liberate Iraq and allow them establish their own government.
Chaos was encouraged because it is under that cover where one can plunder and pillage uncontested.
The whole idea was to secure the oil fields and amass huge reconstruction contracts for all of the administration's cronies and Cheney's real businesses. That way you ensure lasting conflict and insurgency which in turn, makes more and more money for all of the corporations involved in the proliferation of war.
And you need the puppet government to ensure cooperation, except the Iraqi's are proving too intelligent and savvy to fall for that ploy. Obviously they don't watch as much TV as you know who (who, that can be treated as adolescents by a patronizing cabal and coerced into thinking that voting for a psycho/sociopathic, alcoholic, inveterate liar is the right thing to do).
The whole war on terror rhetoric is nothing more than a transparent substitute for the "Red Scare". IMHO :patriot:

[Old and In the Way]

5. Chaos keeps Iraqi oil off the market.

Who's the winner? Saudi Arabia and Big Oil.

[drdtroit]

6. And who are their partners? Bushco!

[Ravy]

4. Agreed!

Or, not gone to war at all! Weapon inspectors were there, Saddam was seeking asylum...

Bush wanted war, and wants to stay there even though the pre-war goals have been accomplished. He now proclaims that we will be there until Iraq is a full democracy, and the troops are trained to some unknown standard.

I imagine that even if those happened tomorrow, he would find a way to push it out further (get the oil back to pre-war production, get the unemployment under 5%, have Christianity made the major religion, whatever).

He wants to stay there because of the money. There is more raping and pillaging of the resources to be done!

[madokie]

13. Some hope for a better future, is the key

We need us some of that. I's setting here listening to abraham, martin and john by dion. Hadn't heard that song in many moons.

[Ravy]

16. OT, do you remember Tom Clay's version???

It was that song, but overlaid with sounds from the assassinations and quotes from the day.

I think it was called "What the world needs now"

[madokie]

17. yes, vaguely

have a link

[Ravy]

18. I googled it a bit...

you can find the lyrics and the story of how the song was put together and who Tom Clay is... but I didn't see any sites with the music.

I remember it from high school, it was quite popular on the station I listened to. I did get an MP3 of it in the early Napster days.

Still gives me chills.

[cliss]

7. That's pretty close.

I must have read hundreds of articles on this subject. According to my best sources, Iraq was lost in the summer of 2003.

This is when the U.S. realized it was dealing with an insurgency that was only going to get worse. It was called "guerrilla warfare" and the U.S. should have learned that we can't fight that kind of war. Cheney should have asked the generals who were around during VietNam.

So by the summer of 2003, the U.S. They tried to negotiate with the 2 most powerful leaders; Muqtada Al-Sadr and Grand Ayatollah Al-Sistani. Al-Sadr just wanted the U.S. to leave, but Al-Sistani insisted on an election. Also, he refused to negotiate directly with U.S. officials, who by now would have kissed his hand. Instead, he always sent envoys to carry his message.

Just imagine! Bush made it sound like the Election was His Idea. He ran around and bragged that he was "bringing Democracy to Iraq". When the truth was, the Iraqi population could have started huge uprisings, if Al-Sistani had given the word.

You see, Al-Sistani has an agenda of his own. He's going to let the U.S. exhaust itself financially and politically. After 70 years of ruthless domination, the Shi'a's are finally getting their day.

So you're right: Bush pissed away his opportunities. That's because he doesn't read history.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

8. Bush won the war.

When you find the $8 billion let me know.



Eta: ...or $300 billion. Depends on your perspective.

...or $8 trillion if the glass is half-full.

[Ravy]

9. Yeah, I guess he is still winning, looking at it that way. (n/t)

[killbotfactory]

10. How are the oil and halliburton stocks performing?

They did royally fuck up if they actually cared about their stated goals, but then, you can only guess at their real motives.

[Jed Dilligan]

11. Bush's dad lost the war in 1991

When he destroyed the regular army units that could have ousted Saddam way back then. Remember how the Republican Guards just "melted away" despite the expected stiff resistance? While hundreds of thousands of regular troops just sat there in our bombsights? Bush sr wittingly or unwittingly extended Saddam's reign by a decade and more. Who knows if the shrub is following in his footsteps?

[Ravy]

12. I don't see the point.

Are you suggesting that we should have let Saddam keep Kuwait?

[Jed Dilligan]

14. Yes

Because "we," the ongoing Reagan/Bush/Bush regime, were not honest brokers in the situation. "We" were the creators of Saddam's regime and somehow managed to prop it up in the course of fighting it. This wasn't a job for the most powerful military in the world. The South African army probably could have pushed Saddam out of Kuwait. A US presence was not necessary in that situation and turned out to do much more harm than good.

[Ravy]

15. You may be right, but I don't agree.

I don't have any problem with the way Bush I handled the situation, other than the reports that our ambassador maybe gave Saddam a wink and a nod to go ahead and invade Kuwait.

But once he was there, Bush the greater built a coalition the correct way and handled the situation militarily.

I do have a problem with the embargo, as I do with all embargos. I consider them counter-productive. Isolation hasn't worked to bring down Castro, and it only hurts the population, not the government it is against. If you REALLY want to topple some sort of tyrant, open up the trade and allow McDonalds and Coca Cola to take over the country for you.