The war IS over

[mdmc]

this is the hard part - rebuilding Iraq.

Saddam Hussein was dictator for a reason, Iraq was in total shambles.
Once we overthrew the Bathe party, we became responsible for Iraq.
Bush and the Dems can cut and run at any time. Unless there is a stable pro west democracy in Iraq, our intervention will be a failure.

As someone who pretty much opposed this war from 9-11-2001 on (don't kid yourself, most anti-war protesters knew after 9-11 that w. would be going into Iraq. Worse, he was able to do it with almost everyone cheering him on :mad:), I fully understood that once we went in, we could never get out. GHWB knew it. So did Powell.

So pull the troops out tomorrow, or at the end of the year, or at the end of the decade, or at the end of the century. If there is not a stable, pro-west democracy in place in Iraq, we have lost.

Thank you to all those that opposed this needless military intervention.:patriot: Shame on all you enablers. I am a bit confused by all those that now claim that the war is a mistake; I appreciate their understanding, but feel that the damage has already been done.

[meganmonkey]

1. Who has lost?

Bushco doesn't want a stable, pro-west democracy. They want perpetual occupation. Otherwise they willno longer profit.

Do the Iraqis want a stable, pro-west democracy?

The idea of rebuilding is appealing, especially since we are the ones who destroyed the infrastructure (several times in the last couple decades, btw).

But our military is not trained to build, they are trained to kill and destroy. As long as they are there, death and destruction will continue.

Btw, HEY YOU!!! :hi: It's good to see you :hug:

[mdmc]

37. Never ending war

:mad:

[Xenotime]

40. We lost. The Iraqi patriots have control....

They have the troops in fear.

[Kolesar]

2. It gave bush an issue to bust the Democrats with in 2002 & 2004

[Master Mahon]

3. Iraq and the middle east will NEVER

be stable with a 'pro west' democracy in place!!!

A pro mid-east gov't, willing to snub it's nose at the west, may have
a fighting chance in Iraq, but as many years of history shows, colonization by the west will never work, ESPECIALLY now.

[bullimiami]

4. we have lost. the only way to win iraqi support was to treat them with

respect. instead we exploit and kill them, tell them what to do and pillage the country.

i suspect there will never be a pro us iraq for at least the next generation unless we did a 180, arrested bush and his whole cabal, put them on trial and bent over backwards making restitution and amends to the iraqis.

that wont be happening. its over.

[BeFree]

5. We have lost...

...because the premise was flawed and remains flawed.

We can never win without killing nearly all of the Iraqis, and everyone else in the ME. Like they did to native americans from sea to shining sea.

It is the way of war, and sad to say, most Americans still relish the very idea.

[neoblues]

6. Of course the damage has already been done...

But they're still doing more damage (and will continue to do so). Though a simple pull out would result in a civil war/free-for-all to see who gets totalitarian power.

It is a bit strange--all the people now thinking that the war was a mistake... It should be noted that when Bush went into IRAQ, he was not being cheered. Most people were against the war/invasion. That changed very quickly... whether it was due to the effects of the overwhelming, hypnotic multi-media 'war' coverage or to the effectiveness of the argument that now you have to support the troops (or the conflation of "supporting the troops" with the idea of "supporting the war"), who knows. So most of the public "flip-flopped". Interestingly, as time dragged on and the bad news and casualties continued to mount, year after year... people began to 'return to their senses'. Now they've "flip-flopped" again, back to their original position, being "against the war". If nothing else, it shows how easily and completely Americans can be manipulated--even on big issues.

Certainly we really do need to achieve some sort of successful government in IRAQ. One that, at the very least, can function mostly independently (at least without much in the way of U.S. troops). Having engaged in an illegal war, we rather owe the people of IRAQ, to at least provide some semblance of stability (and we aren't doing it now). Putting Humpty-Dumpty together again with multiple, diverse and incompatible peoples, some of whom have been at each others for centuries is rather difficult (and anybody who bothered to find out--easily done--knew this before we went in... why, even Smirky's daddy, '41', figured that one out--and he wasn't very bright (inheriting political power and wealth just isn't the same thing as intelligent)).

Far out theory/proposal? We should just take half a million IRAQI women out of the country, expose them to western society/women's rights and put them through a year or so of law enforcement, investigation training (think extended FBI boot camp)(and perhaps government/Democracy can be covered too), equip them thoroughly, concurrenly build secure security/police stations throughout IRAQ, and send them back. Okay, okay, some men can be included too, and the major western countries can all pitch in to provide the training. With a period of support from our military, methinks they'd settle things down in a hurry. That'd be maybe two years more... but we might be able to begin to reduce troop levels even before that...

[mdmc]

14. Oh My God!

That is the best proposal ever! Thanks for thinking outside of the box. :)
As far as people not cheering Bush and his invasion, I disagree. All I heard was support the troops shiite from dems and the public. It was only the blacks and the progressives that truly supported the troops, by suggesting that we keep them out of harms way. It seemed as everyone thought that this would be easy.

[Ladyhawk]

23. It was actually during the build-up to war that I came to my senses

concerning the * administration. I opposed the war and switched party affiliations.

[mdmc]

32. that takes a lot of courage as well

I know many people that have had a change of heart. At the very least, most now think that "this was not as easy" as the administration made it out to be.

Arlo Guthrie does a story song about how courageous it is to change course, when needed.

Peace ladyhawk! :)

[Ladyhawk]

34. I now have almost nothing in common with my family.

It's very, very hard. I no longer believe in a god or the Republican Party. I hadn't for years, but something about 9-11 pushed me to make the "no god" thing official. I finally admitted my lack of belief to my mother. I've paid for it ever since. I had been "apolitical" for years, but junior is such a beast (chimp) that I had to make a stand in politics, too. :shrug: When it rains, it pours.

For me, 9-11 really did change everything. :( I was watching a nature documentary yesterday. Canada geese were flying past the Manhattan skyline and my eyes were drawn irresistably to the twin towers. For me, the sight of those towers not only means horrible death and destruction (people jumping; people being killed while on the phone to loved ones), it means a complete shift in my life. I couldn't sit on the fence anymore.

[neoblues]

29. Until He Invaded...

Nobody was worried or going on about supporting the troops; granted, as soon as they were in danger, of course, everyone wanted to be counted as patriotic and worried for our 'boys', and really, reasonably so. Up to the point he did it, most people (with the exception of some Republicans) wanted to avoid the whole thing and were almost bewildered by Bush's reckless push to start this war. Very few even understood how we could even think of invading a country that hadn't qualified as a "real and present" danger to the United States. Nevertheless, the collective memory (apparently extending all the way down to many or perhpas most individuals) is surprisingly short--and they apparently believe they supported the war from before the start.

In fact, just prior to the invasion, only 37% (an 8% jump from the month before, owing to Bush's State of the Union where he made his case and Powell's presentation to the U.N.) were in favor of going in without U.N. support--though, owing to Bush's out and out lies, an increasing number, perhaps even a majority were in favor of military action--but remember, polls are easily gamed by what and how the questions were asked. I seriously doubt we were seeing reasonable polls with proper alternatives. The questions were certainly provided in limiting contexts, and biased/rigged to support the Bush Administration's position. Exaggerated example: "Given that Saddam, who was behind 9/11, hates America and has vowed retribution, has massive stockpiles of WMDs, mobile bioweapons labs and is developing nuclear weapons, pick only (a) or (b). (a) The U.S. should go in and disarm IRAQ, or (b) The U.S. should give up and do nothing. Surprise, surprise, 57% supported invasion. Indeed, by this point, a majority of Americans truly, but erroneously, believed IRAQ had been behind 9/11, did indeed have mobile bioweapons labs and was in the process of developing nuclear weapons. Even so, only about 40% thought Bush had made the case for war, and despite a support for invasion of 57%+/-, 87% favored further weapons inspections. So it's hard to tell what people wanted (and I am certain that the polls showing such high percentages of support weren't asking the question in a way that got to the real intent--despite how badly misled people were; remember when asked about "going it alone" or unilateral invasion, less than 1/3 were in favor--until the last month prior to invasion when it may have tipped as high as 37% as the BA poured on the propaganda).

Immediately before the invasion, anti-war protests broke out in some 500 U.S. cities (and obviously, the largest public protest in history was seen elsewhere across the globe; everywhere where people weren't exclusively fed the garbage the U.S. media and Bush Administration was spewing). Promptly, though, following the beginning of the invasion, support for the war was up to 62%. Hardly a vast majority, but a majority. Inside of another month, it was up to 72%. Of course, that was before it became patently obvious we weren't going to be greeted as liberators and that the whole mess was going to best be described as a quagmire.

A year and a half after going in, two thirds believed we'd gone to war based on incorrect assumptions, not lies, assumptions. Shrub came close enough to winning that the Republican electoral games tipped the scales. Three years after, half the people thought it had been a mistake to go in. The sick part is that 44% still thought it was the right thing to do while 5% were clueless.

It's worth remembering too, that some of our perception of what the rest of America and the public even in our own communities thinks, comes from the media. We rely upon their polling, as well as taking note of what's being said by talk shows and the news reports of demonstrations and public events, to get a sense of what everyone else thinks. All of that is easily manipulated. They can so easily make it sound like the whole country is up in arms, chomping at the bit to do something, support something or whatever. Likewise, they can utterly hide massive popular support or dissent. How many of the 500 or so anti-IRAQ-inavasion protests did you see on TV or see plastered accross the front pages of papers and magazines? Not much I suspect; I recall only the briefest mention, despite the real size--though I heard a little more about the opposition in other countries (but even then, it wasn't proper coverage considering the true size of the worldwide response). Actually, even that was mostly after-the-fact/after the invasion was done with. Beware forming your opinions or letting them be influenced by what appears to be public consensus. Otherwise, you're likely to think Stephen Colbert was neither funny nor incisive in his appearance the the White House Correspondents Dinner.

I wouldn't be surprised if Smirky's job approval numbers aren't even lower than we've been led to believe. Who knows how trustworthy the poll numbers are (and besides, the Republican respondents probably stayed true to form with their behavior in every other area of their lives, and lied to try to make their party look better than it really is).

[mdmc]

33. thanks for the info and the recap

peace!

[coalition_unwilling]

25. ", concurrenly build secure security/police stations throughout IRAQ" --

that would be a problem. Who exactly would do the building of these mini-Fort Apaches? Halliburton? Almost all the reconstruction projects have shut down for lack of security.

[Greyhound]

39. Brilliant! I would add that upon their return, the women be placed in all

of the positions of power in the new government.

As for including some men, I'd reconsider, they have been thoroughly acculturated with the notion that men are, by an act of God, superior to women, so I'd say give it a generation or two before allowing them any participation.

[MadHound]

7. The thing is that it really doesn't matter when we leave

Nor what sort of "stable" government we establish. None of that matters because whenever we leave, today, next year, next decade, violence and civil war will almost immediately break out because the Iraqi people will view any sort of government that the US sets up as illegal and illegit, and will go about as quickly as possible to dismantle it, most likely with violence.

Oh, and your little portrayal of Iraq under Saddam is disingenous. Iraq under Saddam was peaceful, prosperous, and one of the most Westernized societies in the Mid East. Women had respect and rights, weren't smothered in superstition and burkas. Oh, and every home had either an auto or semi auto weapon in it, mandated by law.

I'm not saying that Saddam was all love and flowers, far from it, he was an evil little fuck when he wanted. However Iraq wasn't a backwards poor country. It only became one after the first Gulf War, and during the ninties with Clinton sponsored sanctions and thrice weekly bombing runs that killed a half million innocents.

So we have a choice facing us. Either stay in and continue the carnage our presence causes, and establish some sort of stable government that will be wiped out in a bloodbath as soon as we leave. Or pull out now and watch as a short sharp civil war breaks out, followed by a government of Iraq's own making. I go with the latter choice, because I think in the long run it will cause less death and destruction, which is the primary objective at this point.

[MichiganVote]

8. We have forced Iraq to be our foster child. Very few foster children

welcome strangers, even those dressed as "friends". Iraqi's will never accept or forget our 'intervention'. Iraqi's are as conflicted as Americans about what to do, when to have Americans leave etc.

What they don't know yet, is that none of it matters b/c so long as there is oil in them thar' hills, we'll never leave them alone. Ever.

[Rex]

9. War is such a messy term, how about regional conflict?

Look we HAD to go into Iraq! Saddam had WMDs, that were moved to another country, so we liberated Iraq from an evil dictator and now living conditions are worse. Democracy is messy too! Don't look at it as a war, the BFEE sees it for what it is - an opportunity to get stinking rich! :(

[titoresque]

17. ..

:wtf::crazy:

[DoYouEverWonder]

10. Then the US should turn over control of Iraq

to UN Peacekeepers.

[dysfunctional press]

11. but that would mean sharing all that sweet sweet iraqi crude...

and that AIN'T gonna happen.

that's w's oil- he won it fair and square...(well, in his mind anyway)

[DoYouEverWonder]

13. At this point,

let the US have the crude. Just stop the killing first. Then they can sort the rest of it out later.

[dysfunctional press]

15. i don't think that many countries are going to send THEIR soldiers...

to be added to the death toll for a deal like that.

[DoYouEverWonder]

19. That's why it has to be under UN Control

The UN is good at peacekeeping missions. I think it their responsibility to intervene in this mess. Isn't that why they were created?

[dysfunctional press]

24. the u.n. is made up of troops from other nations...

they aren't going to go into iraq to protect u.s. oil interests, and shouldn't be expected to.

[DoYouEverWonder]

26. They need to go to Iraq and restore order

and help them set up a government, just like they just did in Liberia.

[dysfunctional press]

28. the u.s. wouldn't cede control to the u.n. anyway...

even if the u.n. were intersted in going in. it's not the job of the u.n. to be cleaning up the mess the u.s. made AND protecting u.s. corporate oil interests.

we broke it, we bought it.

[alcibiades_mystery]

12. So, we pull out and lose

What's the problem?

We pulkl out and the Iraqi people win. Period.

[titoresque]

16. The Embassy will be seen from space n/t

[LSK]

18. do you understand that the Bush admin DOES NOT WANT TO FIX IT

Go see F9/11 again. War = Profit. Contractors are making money.

We are not fucking rebuilding Iraq. The Bush administration DOES NOT WANT TO.

Continued CHAOS = money for contractors.

Got it????

WE ARE NOT THERE TO FIX IRAQ! GOT IT???

You walk into a store - you break it you bought it. Well we are not buying it, we are breaking everything else in the store with no intention of buying it.

[titoresque]

22. It doesn't seem that most people in this thread get that

:banghead:

[Mass]

20. Tell that to those we will die over there in the next few weeks.

[mdmc]

35. bring them home,,,admit defeat and bring them home

your senators seem willing to do that... mine don't...

[aikoaiko]

21. a brutal, pro-west dictatorship would be a happy draw though. nt

[mdmc]

27. better then the bathe party and Saddam

and just enough to keep us out of Syria... good point...

[H2O Man]

30. Sure.

President Bush even said that the mission was accomplished. What more proof is needed?

What bugs me is that those terriblists won't quit playing. Game's over. You lost. Check the scoreboard. We won. Anything they do now is just cheating, and in clear violation of the rules established by President Bush.

[mdmc]

31. It kinda reminds me of the loyalists during the revolution

"they are shooting from behind stone walls!"

[TahitiNut]

36. When those who commit war crimes "lose" it's called justice.

:shrug:

[mmonk]

38. Iraq is the launch pad

for a global war on different countries and the region as a whole. It's step one and was always meant to be step one. We will remain and continue to prop up whatever government we can fashion to insure our presence and rule.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

41. The occupation will end when the Iraqis throw us out.

Which they are well on to their way of doing.

Despite all the flag waving and "cut and run" vs "stay the course" rhetoric, the American people are weary of the unending war for nothing. And, the Iraqi insurgency is well aware of it also.

At some point, not far off, the Iraqi government will bow to the will of the people and demand that we leave. Or, the American people will finally demand that the war end and the troops come home, and the politicians will heed them.

Then will come the usual "stab in the back" crappola and a new monument will be erected to the cannon-fodder for the politicians to use in preparation for the next venture into imperialism.