What if America were Iraq?

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

I would think if the US was ruled by an oppressive government we would rise up and overthrow him, without someone else needing to come in and do it for us. 

 

Oh thats right, we already did, 230 years ago.

42740[/snapback]

 

Comparing George III and Parliament in 1775 to Saddam in 2003?!?! That's WAY over the top; there is a HUGE difference between forcing bad laws and acts on your colonies, versus murdering so many of your own population and torturing them.

 

Do you REALLY think we could have another revolution, with the modern military we have??? Now that would be a VERY interesting discussion. Any theories???

[Dr. K]

So what?  None of you people seems to know much about history.  There is no way to get 100% of a conquered nation's populace to behave in a nice manner.  To expect it in a place that was so lawless and brutal (on the side of the government, anyway) is foolish.

 

What this war means in the grand scheme of things won't be known for 20 years.  It's very easy for John Kerry and the rest of you liberals to pretend you know what the hell you're talking about when you're only using hindsight. 

 

It's more than a little ironic that you accuse those on the other side of the aisle of "living in a fantasyland" when that's pretty much the summary of your politics.

43053[/snapback]

 

I did not expect this to go smoothly. It was Bush and Perle and Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld who said Iraqis would be throwing flowers at our feet, and who still insist everything is going according to plan. What plan? You're right about twenty years. But if Bush has made a twenty-year commitment to our presence in Iraq, he ought to come out and say it, and he can make his plans for moving back to his ranch in January.

 

I said it was a mistake BEFORE it started. You talk about "hindsight"; I was one of the MILLIONS who predicted that this thing would turn sour. If the Bushies had listened to some of us liberals we wouldn't be in this mess in Iraq. Hell, if they had listened to their own Pentagon and state department we wouldn't be in this mess.

 

We'll have to disagree about whose vision of the world is a fantasy. If you think Bush and the neocons are realistic in their assessment of Iraq and the Middle East, then I hope you'll pardon me if I snicker.

[MichFan]

If the Bushies had listened to some of us liberals we wouldn't be in this mess in Iraq.

You're wrong -- using your strategy, the mess in Iraq would have found it's way over here first, and then we would have gotten your permission to go ahead with Iraq. Ultimately, we were going to end up in Iraq again regardless of the administration. Your way there would have been a few more thousand deaths on American soil.

[GG]

You're wrong -- using your strategy, the mess in Iraq would have found it's way over here first, and then we would have gotten your permission to go ahead with Iraq.  Ultimately, we were going to end up in Iraq again regardless of the administration.  Your way there would have been a few more thousand deaths on American soil.

43667[/snapback]

 

Maybe that's what I'm missing from the original post - the analogy of the original essay would be perfectly applicable.

[Dr. K]

You're wrong -- using your strategy, the mess in Iraq would have found it's way over here first, and then we would have gotten your permission to go ahead with Iraq.  Ultimately, we were going to end up in Iraq again regardless of the administration.  Your way there would have been a few more thousand deaths on American soil.

43667[/snapback]

 

Let me say this once, in simple language:

 

Not invading Iraq in March 2003 does not mean not defending America or fighting terrorism. In fact, invading Iraq has made the terrorist problem worse.

 

Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

 

In March 2003 Iraq had NO weapons that offered any threat to the U.S.

 

Even if Iraq then had such weapons (which we now know they didn't), the UN had inspectors on the ground in Iraq who had found NOTHING when Bush decided to start the war.

 

Whenever the US gave its best intelligence on where these phantom weapons were, inspectors found NOTHING at those sites.

 

The cost of going to war has greatly exceeded the cost of continuing inspections and putting the diplomatic screws to Iraq.

 

We have no easy way out of this mess now, no matter who is in the White House. The costs to the US (and to Iraq, and the rest of the world) of making the decision to go to war will not be calculated for years to come.

 

I lived through the Vietnam War. What we have here is a second example of arraogant policymakers involving the US in a quagmire through their strategic delusions.

[MichFan]

Let me say this once, in simple language:

Not invading Iraq in March 2003 does not mean not defending America or fighting terrorism. In fact, invading Iraq has made the terrorist problem worse.

Defense loses in this battle. Saddam was at the front of the line for offensive tactics, he had already painted a bullseye on Baghdad.

 

Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

Never implied they did. They were harboring AQ as early as 2001, however.

 

In March 2003 Iraq had NO weapons that offered any threat to the U.S.

Even if Iraq then had such weapons (which we now know they didn't), the UN had inspectors on the ground in Iraq who had found NOTHING when Bush decided to start the war.

Whenever the US gave its best intelligence on where these phantom weapons were, inspectors found NOTHING at those sites.

Whenever the US gave its best intelligence on where these phantom weapons were, the media was there waiting for the inspectors to show up .

 

The cost of going to war has greatly exceeded the cost of continuing inspections and putting the diplomatic screws to Iraq.

You're right, because the U.N. was tiring of the whole Iraq issue and they were about ready to start removing sanctions. Which gets back to my point that we were ultimately going to end up in Iraq regardless of the administration.

 

I lived through the Vietnam War. What we have here is a second example of arraogant policymakers involving the US in a quagmire through their strategic delusions.

I think I'll trust Allawi's judgement over yours on this one.

[GG]

I lived through the Vietnam War.  What we have here is a second example of arraogant policymakers involving the US in a quagmire through their strategic delusions.

43689[/snapback]

 

Of course your linear logic assumes that the military failure in Vietnam had zero impact on the USSR's and China's actions in the region.

 

Now that the Cold War is over, we can be more sanguine about the communist threat. But you really don't know how it would have ended up if the US didn't send the troops in and show that it would not stand for a communist land grab.

 

I like the way history played this one out, and am grateful for the sacrifice of the 50,000 who perished there.

 

Same situation now. Your speculation that leaving Iraq alone would be just fine, is the opposite of the speculation that removing him and fostering a new world in Mid East is the way to go.

 

We really won't know for 15-20 years. But, given world history, I'm erring on the side of pre-emption.

[Alaska Darin]

Let me say this once, in simple language:

Gee, I so appreciate that. Your normal language is so darn confusing to me.

 

Not invading Iraq in March 2003 does not mean not defending America or fighting terrorism.  In fact, invading Iraq has made the terrorist problem worse. 

You're probably wrong on that, though we won't know for a long time. I don't expect you to understand the nuances of such endeavors.

 

Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

Thanks for clearing that up. Thankfully, the President understands the war on terrorism is a little bigger than the war on Al Qaeda. Something about the 30,000 foot view that you libbers can't grasp.

 

In March 2003 Iraq had NO weapons that offered any threat to the U.S.

Is that your professional opinion? I didn't realize you had any experience in the field?

 

Even if Iraq then had such weapons (which we now know they didn't), the UN had inspectors on the ground in Iraq who had found NOTHING when Bush decided to start the war.

Ooh, the UN. Super credible organization there. How's Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti, etc? Maybe they were too busy giving chairmanships on Human Rights to Cuba and WMD committees to Iraq to do the job right?

 

 

Whenever the US gave its best intelligence on where these phantom weapons were, inspectors found NOTHING at those sites.

Yeah, lets pretend every single intelligence agency in the world was completely wrong. When something happens over the next few years and the weapons are traced back to Iraq, alot of you liberals are going to look very foolish.

 

The cost of going to war has greatly exceeded the cost of continuing inspections and putting the diplomatic screws to Iraq.

Tell that to the women and children that we're dying in catastrophic numbers while Saddam was building palaces with the "Oil for Food" money. Read the UNICEF report I've posted here numerous times?

 

We have no easy way out of this mess now, no matter who is in the White House.  The costs to the US (and to Iraq, and the rest of the world) of making the decision to go to war will not be calculated for years to come.

HOTPOCKETS! FLIGHTSUIT! HALLIBURTON!

 

I lived through the Vietnam War.  What we have here is a second example of arraogant policymakers involving the US in a quagmire through their strategic delusions.

Unlike the arrogant policy makers on the left who think they can tax the crap out of everyone and create a government sponsored Utopia? Let me know when they've had some success.

[Adam]

Good grief, are you joking?  What do you expect him to say six weeks before his re-election?

 

I'm sure if Bush came out and discussed the nature of the serious problems in Iraq, you lefties would be all for having serious dialogue about how to fix the problems and not use it as an opportunity to jump all over him and get your boy Kerry voted in.  This 'essay' is stevestojan;  MichFan hit the nail on the head by pointing out the absurdity of the comparison.

 

Politics is a two way street....let's not intentionally ignore that fact.

42895[/snapback]

 

I think coming out and saying that there were no weapons, and the premises that the war was built on were wrong- I think it would get him a little sympathy, and probably seal his re-election, seeing that Kerry isn't any better a candidate than he is.

 

The fact is that the government we are setting up over there isn't what its supposed to be, and will remain intact only while we are there to protect it.

 

Freedom to do what we want them to do isnt freedom.

[SilverNRed]

I would think if the US was ruled by an oppressive government we would rise up and overthrow him, without someone else needing to come in and do it for us. 

 

Oh thats right, we already did, 230 years ago.

42740[/snapback]

 

This first response says it all. The thread could have ended right here.

[SilverNRed]

Ooh, the UN.  Super credible organization there.  How's Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti, etc?  Maybe they were too busy giving chairmanships on Human Rights to Cuba and WMD committees to Iraq to do the job right?

 

Tell that to the women and children that we're dying in catastrophic numbers while Saddam was building palaces with the "Oil for Food" money.  Read the UNICEF report I've posted here numerous times?

43737[/snapback]

 

Gotta love that UN. And let's not forget Sudan. I understand the United Nations is preparing a very 'strongly worded' resolution on the matter that should help bring about its resolution about two weeks after never.

[Alaska Darin]

I did not expect this to go smoothly. It was Bush and Perle and Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld who said Iraqis would be throwing flowers at our feet, and who still insist everything is going according to plan.  What plan?  You're right about twenty years.  But if Bush has made a twenty-year commitment to our presence in Iraq, he ought to come out and say it, and he can make his plans for moving back to his ranch in January.

 

I said it was a mistake BEFORE it started.  You talk about "hindsight"; I was one of the MILLIONS who predicted that this thing would turn sour.  If the Bushies had listened to some of us liberals we wouldn't be in this mess in Iraq.  Hell, if they had listened to their own Pentagon and state department we wouldn't be in this mess.

 

We'll have to disagree about whose vision of the world is a fantasy.  If you think Bush and the neocons are realistic in their assessment of Iraq and the Middle East, then I hope you'll pardon me if I snicker.

43636[/snapback]

Yeah, politicians ought to be honest. That should be easy to fix.

 

I too said it was a mistake before it started. Pretty much everything I said was going to happen has. Totally different analysis than yours, however.

 

I don't think either side of this debate is correct, as I have stated in the past. You can keep use buzzwords and DNC talking points, but that doesn't do much for your argument.

[berrbolk]

We'd do something about it.

[chicot]

Nice of them to opt out of airing a hostage's wife's videotaped plea for her husband's life because it wasn't compelling enough to interrupt their scheduled programming.  "Excellent" news my arse.

42987[/snapback]

 

Whether you approve of what they choose to cover or not to cover, the fact is that Al-Jazeera's coverage of events in Iraq is far more detailed than most other news networks. They often have coverage of minor incidents in Iraq that other news channels simply don't bother to cover. For day-to-day coverage of what's going on in Iraq, there are few news sources that are better. From that point of view, Al-Jazeera is excellent for Iraq news.

[chicot]

Nice of them to opt out of airing a hostage's wife's videotaped plea for her husband's life because it wasn't compelling enough to interrupt their scheduled programming.  "Excellent" news my arse.

42987[/snapback]

 

Seems that the brother of the hostage doesn't quite share your distaste for Al-Jazeera:

 

<<

 

In the Netherlands, Paul Bigley has spent the last week sitting at his computer in his flat.

 

"I haven't spoken to the Foreign Office at all," he said. "The most helpful people have been al-Jazeera. They have somehow, with their contacts, got me indirect access to the terrorists.

 

"The statements I make through them reach the insurgents in half an hour. All I have had from al-Jazeera is support."

 

>>

 

Friggin' Guardian link

[tennesseeboy]

I would think if the US was ruled by an oppressive government we would rise up and overthrow him, without someone else needing to come in and do it for us. 

 

Oh thats right, we already did, 230 years ago.

42740[/snapback]

 

And hopefully we'll dump our oppressive regime again on November 2. Ain't America wonderful

[MichFan]

Seems that the brother of the hostage doesn't quite share your distaste for Al-Jazeera

 

I guess they prefer Brits over Americans. Mush be Bush's fault.