They believe as strongly in their ideology as I believe in ours.

Unfortunately, the defeatist Democrats seem to believe in their ideology as strong as they do too. Imagine if they believed in ours and stood against the terrorists instead of supporting them.

The problem is, we've heard this all before.... When you've lost all credibility it's hard to get people to take you seriously. I think that with Iraq, Bush has opened a Pandora's Box and there is a serious lack of viable options on how to deal with the ensuing consequences (which have proven to be catastrophic). We can scream, "We need to close the box!" until we're blue in the face, but that won't solve the problem because the lid is stuck, the hinges are broken. and the contents have already spilled out.

At least Pandora was able to close her gift from Zeus before the ability to see the future was released, thus giving man hope. Bush's has been open for four and half years and with no forseeable way of closing it... hope is quickly running out...

Not a single political benchmark achieved by the Iraqi government....

While the military wins the battles the administration is losing the war. History repeating itself again? Supporters of President Johnson....I mean President Bush have anything positive to say politically

Are we so sure there has been no progress in "benchmarks?" Should we trust Democrats 'anonymous' sources all the time?

From what I read, defeatist Democrats set "benchmarks" high enough to ensure the liklihood they wouldn't be met.

Imagine how our history might have been had France, Spain and the Netherlands placed near impossible "benchmarks" on our Founding Fathers when we fought for independence from Britain.

....what distinguishes them from us in another way. They will kill a Muslim, a child, or a woman in a moment's notice to achieve a political objective. They are dangerous people that need to be confronted.

This is completely wrong. The only difference is, WE call it "collateral damage" as if that makes it right somehow.

Also, we don't know WHO we're killing. From several thousand feet up, to a helicopter gunship everyone is a stick figure on a thermal imaging camera. That's a scientific reality. Given that the only confirmation of a target then comes from "intelligence" (the same department responsible for linking WMD and Al-Q with Iraq) this is a recipe for disaster.

And it's hard work. And this war is on a multiple of fronts. One front is Afghanistan.

Yes, what DID happen to Afghanistan? One moment we've destroyed the taliban and are narrowing down the possible location of Osama Bin Laden and the next everyone's off to Iraq with a small force and other international troops left in Afghanistan, and suddenly nobody cares (President Bush has even SAID he doesn't care) where Bin Laden is. We had victory in Afghanistan, all we needed to do was to wrap up, but instead we dropped everything there, and who picked up the pieces? Islamic militants. You want to talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, start here!

in this case, we believe al Qaeda, the same people that attacked us in America -- incited serious sectarian violence by blowing up a holy religious site of the Shia

Whoah, whoah, hang on a minute here! We're talking about the golden dome mosque, aren't we? According to multiple sources - Reuters, the BBC, various US media outlets - it's the US/Iraqi administration that most Iraqi's blame for both these attacks. The second one happened when the mosque was supposedly under the protection of the military. To say this is down to Al-Qaeda is unproven spin. NOBODY knows who did it, but the White House says it's Al-Qaeda and many groups in Iraq say it was the US occupation. Let's stick to facts here, not speculation.

I think it's important for the Commander-in-Chief to listen carefully to what the enemy says. They thrive on chaos. They like the turmoil. It enables them to more likely achieve their objectives. ...

This is both true and worrying - since you can look at it from the perspective of the ones wanting chaos because "it enables them to more likely achieve their objectives" to be the pro-war lobby, since if chaos and turmoil die down there will be no need for huge lucrative defense contracts. Who benefits from turmoil and chaos? The companies providing arms, bombs, replacement vehicles etc etc. This is where their profits come from. They don't want peace and calm, what would happen to their profit margin then?

What would the Iranians think about America if we stepped back in the face of this extremist challenge?

They would think "Phew, we're NOT next after all. Maybe we shouldn't pursue nuclear objectives with quite so much urgency."

Failure in Iraq would have serious consequences for the security of your children and your grandchildren.

Absolute scaremongering crap. I've BEEN to Iraq. I know what the sentiment there is. Let me tell you, the majority of Iraqis couldn't give a crap where American troops are, so long as it isn't in their country. They also couldn't give a crap what these radical high profile "muslims" have to say. They want to rebuild their lives, not to come over to America. They hate America, for destroying their country - they don't want to come over here, that's the LAST thing on their minds.

His advice, Mr. President, is we must change the mission to provide security for the people in the capital city of Iraq, as well as in Anbar Province, in order for the progress that the 12 million people who voted can be made. That's why we've done what we've done.

You cannot provide security by domination. Most people I've read about scoff about the 'defeatist attitude' of France in WWII, they even make jokes about it these days - how France is "defeatest". Well, France occupied by Germany was the same domination situation as Iraq occupied by America. France NEVER stopped fighting, with insurgency, blowing up convoys, destroying important rail links etc (sound familiar?) - and in the end they got "liberated" FROM OCCUPATION BY A FOREIGN POWER. How come we "liberated" France by beating back the nazis after D-day, yet we're "liberating" Iraq by occupation? The two procedures are opposite. They're not compatible.

But I believe that it's in this nation's interest to give the commander a chance to fully implement his operations. And I believe Congress ought to wait for General Petraeus to come back and give his assessment of the strategy that he's putting in place before they make any decisions.

And the Iraqi people (remember them?) What do they believe? Most of them believe that as soon as Iraq's government passes legislation giving the vast majority of it's oil profits to western countries, Bush will pull the troops out. Most believe this is what he's holding out for. And again, don't tell me that I'm in la-la land unless YOU have been to Iraq too, and spoken to the Iraqi people, and listened to what they have to say. I have. The bulk of contributors here haven't, they're going by what they've heard in media reports. I have spoken to people in Iraq, listened to what they have to say, and I'm posting my impressions on that here. I'd say those qualifications make me BETTER qualified to give an opinion about what the Iraqi people do and don't want than ANYONE else I've read commenting here.

The government in Iraq doesn't want to pass the oil legislation. It's committing political suicide. Even if a government is put in place that DOES pass it, the second troops leave the government will be overthrown and this legislation will be the first out, and what then? Do we then re-invade?

Nobody reasonable expects all the goals to be met immediately, that's silly. What's not silly is to expect at least a FEW of the goals to be met, and it looks like this isn't going to be the case. Indications are that the report by the 15th will admit that NONE of the goals have been met. Why are we giving people who don't have any intention of meeting goals more time to meet goals? It's costing lives - OUR lives. If goals aren't met, what can you do? It will boil down to two possible choices. Buy a few more months to try and meet some goals with American lives, watching as the government faces possible defeat in a vote of no confidence, or start withdrawing now, possibly even using that as a threat.

Nice try, Mr Bush, but the "surge" is protecting a political agenda that simply isn't happening. How long are you going to throw away American lives hoping that it might?

First, the enemy. These folks aren't isolated folks, you know, they just kind of randomly show up. They have an objective. They believe as strongly in their ideology as I believe in ours. They believe that they have a obligation to spread a point of view ...

How can we defeat the enemy if we refuse to NAME the enemy?

It's crunch-time, Mr. President. President Bush needs to NAME the ENEMY. (Muslims who strictly adhere to Islam.) He needs to tell the American people how many terrorist jihadis there are in the world. 100 million? 200 million? He needs to define what they want (a world-wide Caliphate under Shari'a law). President Bush needs to tell us on how many fronts/nations the enemy is fighting. 70 fronts/nations? 80 fronts/nations? Unless President Bush defines the enemy in straight-forward terms, the American public will not understand why it is so vital that America WINS the war in Iraq.

Thank you, Sarah. Ditto.

It's amazingly audacious that Bush would mention the killing of women and children for political gain. The insurgents have the blood of thousands on their hands. Bush has the blood of tens of thousands, by the most conservative count, for his stated objective of bringing his political ideology of "democracy" to Iraq. But it's all ok because they blow them up on purpose, while he blows them up because they were unlucky enough to have been born and raised in the vicinity of "high value targets." Sucks to be them, eh Bushies?

They should have been born in Texas.

And you guys gotta stop with the "defeatist dems" line. The only way to "lose" an occupation is to not ever pull out. War's over. Saddam's dead. Republican Guard is toast. Baath party is kaput. No WMDs. No Iraqi love for al Qaida. You can't "win" a post-war occupation. You can only botch it. There's a word for occupations that never end. It's "imperialism."

Note in his speech he never mentions that even those of us who don't believe we're at war have to pay the ten billion a month tab, whether we like it or not.

And notice NO ONE in the millionaire's club in Congress mentions to whom those ten billion-dollar s worth of checks are written. You think each and every single soldier is making $66 grand a month?

Where's the money GOING? Oops. That's a secret.

markus warmongerus
bro
bra
brahiminus
brosama
sometimes i agree with you
sometimes i don't
and this time....well...i'm concerned for you
you're looney tunes
your blind faiith is frightening me
enuf said......

Excellent post, Paramedic Sarah, a common-sense analysis; sadly lacking with those who continue to support the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

Bush seems to recite the same speech over and over again. Does this man write his own speeches or are there people who do it for him? If he does have speech-writers, they are a lazy bunch who are not doing their job and should be terminated.

This is completely wrong. The only difference is, WE call it "collateral damage" as if that makes it right somehow.
Which is why they use human shields, shoot from mosques, etc etc. Are you saying that Bush is worse than Al Queda?

Also, we don't know WHO we're killing. From several thousand feet up, to a helicopter gunship everyone is a stick figure on a thermal imaging camera. That's a scientific reality. Given that the only confirmation of a target then comes from "intelligence" ... this is a recipe for disaster.
I have no doubt that mistakes get made, but are you saying that our military doesn't know how to target the bad guys?

Yes, what DID happen to Afghanistan? One moment we've destroyed the taliban and are narrowing down the possible location of Osama Bin Laden and the next everyone's off to Iraq with a small force and other international troops left in Afghanistan, and suddenly nobody cares (President Bush has even SAID he doesn't care) where Bin Laden is. We had victory in Afghanistan, all we needed to do was to wrap up, but instead we dropped everything there, and who picked up the pieces? Islamic militants. You want to talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, start here! The Taliban and AQ escaped to Pakistan. Unfortunately, Pakistan is a nuclear armed islamic state with a strong and radical population. YOu remember the air strikes last year that caused Musharref problems, what would an invasion done? No easy answers. Why are some Democrats calling for a withdrawel from Afghanistan now?

Whoah, whoah, hang on a minute here! We're talking about the golden dome mosque, aren't we? According to multiple sources - Reuters, the BBC, various US media outlets - it's the US/Iraqi administration that most Iraqi's blame for both these attacks. The second one happened when the mosque was supposedly under the protection of the military. To say this is down to Al-Qaeda is unproven spin. NOBODY knows who did it, but the White House says it's Al-Qaeda and many groups in Iraq say it was the US occupation.
Are you saying that it was the Americans and not Al Queda that blew up the dome? I have no doubt that there are some that in Iraq that want to blame the US for it, especially those on the payroll of Iran.

This is both true and worrying - since you can look at it from the perspective of the ones wanting chaos because "it enables them to more likely achieve their objectives" to be the pro-war lobby, since if chaos and turmoil die down there will be no need for huge lucrative defense contracts.
If the chaos and turmoil would die down, there would be no need for US Troops to stay. Since you hint that this is done for the sake of lucrative defense contracts, I can see that you are of the opinion that this war is for profit, freedom and liberty from tyranny be damned.

What would the Iranians think about America if we stepped back in the face of this extremist challenge?
They would think "Phew, we're NOT next after all. Maybe we shouldn't pursue nuclear objectives with quite so much urgency."
Was Iran already seeking nuclear technology previously, before the invasion? Do you really think that Iran would stop persuing Nukes if the US withdrew from Iraq? Don't they have a problem with Israel as well?

You cannot provide security by domination.
True, which is why indigenous security forces must be built up from peoples of all parts of the population, and not just from a single sect of society as was previously.

Well, France occupied by Germany was the same domination situation as Iraq occupied by America. France NEVER stopped fighting, with insurgency, blowing up convoys, destroying important rail links etc (sound familiar?) - and in the end they got "liberated" FROM OCCUPATION BY A FOREIGN POWER. How come we "liberated" France by beating back the nazis after D-day, yet we're "liberating" Iraq by occupation? The two procedures are opposite. They're not compatible.
I don't understand, are you saying that the Iraqi's didn't want to be liberated from Saddam. When the French became insurgents, did they blow up children, car bomb market places, blow up cathedrals, assasintated innocent people etc etc?

Most of them believe that as soon as Iraq's government passes legislation giving the vast majority of it's oil profits to western countries, Bush will pull the troops out. Most believe this is what he's holding out for.
I'm sure you are correct that there is a tremendous amount of conspiracy theories running around over there, propaganda is a powerful instrument. I mean, even you hint that continuous of this war is for lucrative defense contracts.

I have spoken to people in Iraq, listened to what they have to say, and I'm posting my impressions on that here. I'd say those qualifications make me BETTER qualified to give an opinion about what the Iraqi people do and don't want than ANYONE else I've read commenting here.
How do you feel about people like Michael Yon, Bill Roggio, Crittenton (sp?)

Nobody reasonable expects all the goals to be met immediately, that's silly. What's not silly is to expect at least a FEW of the goals to be met...
I don't know what the goals are and whether or not they are realistic, so I wouldn't be able to comment on that. Even here in the US, it seems like congress can't get anything done. After all, what goals for the Democratic congress in withdrawing troops have been met? Things take time, how much I don't know.

It's amazingly audacious that Bush would mention the killing of women and children for political gain. The insurgents have the blood of thousands on their hands. Bush has the blood of tens of thousands, by the most conservative count, for his stated objective of bringing his political ideology of "democracy" to Iraq.
So Bush is worse than the insurgents who are purposely killing innocent people? I don't understand that logic. As far as the "political ideology of democracy", wouldn't you say that was better than the tyranny that was before?

There's a word for occupations that never end. It's "imperialism."
Theres a word from running away from Al Queda, its "surrender".

I think it's important for the Commander-in-Chief to listen carefully to what the enemy says. They thrive on chaos. They like the turmoil. It enables them to more likely achieve their objectives. ...

must be heartening to bin laden and all his cohorts to now that bush "listens" carefully to them. how obedient. what a baffoon.

And we just started. He got all the troops there a couple of weeks ago...

And in Washington, you got people saying, stop... But I believe that it's in this nation's interest to give the commander a chance to fully implement his operations.

so what the hell have you been doing the last four and half years? again - why anyone should take this fraud seriously is out of my range of comprehension.

it's also heartening to see rightwingers like chertoff and santorum (not failing to mention a few culpable commenters on this blog as well) all but WISHING for another terrorist attack on our shores. funny how these individuals contort logic, believing that the FEAR and TERRAH card would somehow benefit republicans even though americans now put greater trust in the democrats when it comes to protecting america from terrorism. yes, that's right - democrats OWN that one too.

JAF -

So Bush is worse than the insurgents who are purposely killing innocent people? I don't understand that logic. As far as the "political ideology of democracy", wouldn't you say that was better than the tyranny that was before?

I think if you polled the Iraqi citizens, the tyranny of Saddam would be FAR preferable to the daily onslaught of violence that wreaks havoc on their lives. at least saddam was able to keep the sunni and shiite sects at bay. a wee bit of a problem NO ONE can now contain. and we have that little insurgency problem to boot now that infidels have made a habit of crossing a very porous border to hone tactics - fat lot o' good that's done the iraqis.

OH! but at least they have a democracy!
[pardon me while i bite my tongue]

Nice speech, but too late. No one believes him or his adminstration any more.

We now know after winning the military war in 2003 had he turned to other advisors like Hamilton- Baker instead of Cheney's Neocons things might have turned out differently.

I really believe history will show even his dad tried to warn him about the Republican Neocons but he would not listen and wanted to be his own man.

He just is not up to the job of being President of the United States.

ONE of the fundamental problems I have with the President's argument is that we are actively fighting a war with Al Queda. We know damn well that the senior leadership of Al Queda is between Pakistan and Afghanistan. However, since 2001 the top leadership has remained more or less intact. If we are fighting a war with Al Queda - and we know that all of the senior leadership is there - what does Iraq have to do with it.
And yes - Mark I am going to bring up the past. I'm sorry - you can't just pretend like it didn't happen. The fact of the matter is that we knew then as we know now that there was no significant Al Queda presence in Iraq before we invaded. In fact Saddam and Al Queda hated each other.

If we are in a war on terrorism and the biggest terrorist threat is Al Queda - why did we divert so much time, money, resources to some place where we were almost certain there was no Al Queda presence while knowing for certain that there is in the border town Pakistan region.

Does it ever strike you as strange that while Bush gave Saddam an ultimatum to leave Iraq within 48 hours - he insists that we must respect the sovereignty of Pakistan even though we invaded Afghanistan on a moments notice when their leadership refused to "give up" Osama? Ever occur to you that while we posture and pose we deal with North Korea with a completely different modus operandi?

The reason is simple North Korea and Pakistan have nukes and significant armies. Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan which were - in comparison to the US military - defenseless they are not.

Bush is nothing more than a Bully. He picks his fights not because they are right - but because of how hard they will be to pick on and how much lunch money they have (OIL).

Worse - both wars Bush has started are complete failures. Sure we toppled some corrupt and horrible regimes - but what did we accomplish - what did we replace them with? Afghanistan is STILL in a state of war, Bin Laden and the top leadership are STILL at large in the region.
Iraq is a complete and total disaster - more people dead because of the war than were ever killed by the tyrant Saddam. No security or peace in sight. To top it off our own intelligence agencies tell us that the world is more dangerous now (more terror attacks and more threats of terror on the US then before).
The Bush doctrine is a complete and total failure . The threat of terrorism is worse than it would have been if we hadn't perused the Bush policies - he hasn't caught Bin Laden, and to boot he has f*cked up Iraq so badly that it will probably take decades to recover if ever..
Wonderful Mr. President, just wonderful

I think if you polled the Iraqi citizens, the tyranny of Saddam would be FAR preferable to the daily onslaught of violence that wreaks havoc on their lives.
I disagree, well sort of. I'm going from memory, but the latest that I read (brookings?) showed that the majority believed that their lives were worse now than before but were more optomistic about having a democracy. Most iraqi's are shiite, so naturally a democracy is preferable. Who is the one creating the havoc?

at least saddam was able to keep the sunni and shiite sects at bay.
If "at bay" means, chemically eliminating whole villages, torturing for power, and jailing 10 year olds, then yes you are right. Anyone remember those olympic athletes tortured for failing to perform?

However, since 2001 the top leadership has remained more or less intact. If we are fighting a war with Al Queda - and we know that all of the senior leadership is there - what does Iraq have to do with it. - kblock

AQ is in mant other countries other than Iraq and Pakistan. We must continue to kill the network while we put pressure on the leadership. Which is exactly what's being done. People that pay attention realize that.

The fact of the matter is that we knew then as we know now that there was no significant Al Queda presence in Iraq before we invaded. In fact Saddam and Al Queda hated each other. - kblock

How many times has this been debunked? Do you even listen to others, or are you on a retarded loop.

While Saddam and UBL were certainly not strong allies, Saddam had extensive connections to terrorism (Al Gore is the most convincing), and when we took out Saddam we invited in AQ to begin to dismantle them in Iraq rather than elsewhere, specifically here. A much better strategy other than chasing them around the globe.

Ever occur to you that while we posture and pose we deal with North Korea with a completely different modus operandi? - kblock

First of all, there is a leader in Pakistan that is attempting to work with the civilized community. It's better to foster that development than invade, no? The Taliban ruled Afghanistan at the time, was there any need to try and foster that development? And different situations require different diplomacy, ie; NK.

Honestly kblock, you seem to have the awareness of an elementary student. And a poor one at that.

...but because of how hard they will be to pick on and how much lunch money they have (OIL). - kblock

Straight from the Daily KOS talking points. This is the last time I will ever respond to your agenda driven, unintelligent posts.

Which is why they use human shields, shoot from mosques, etc etc. Are you saying that Bush is worse than Al Queda?

In some ways, yes. Al-Qaeda are an internationally recognised terrorist group. Bush and Cheney haven't yet gained international recognition in western countries. So your opponent has helicopter gunships and tanks, while you have machine guns and RPGs. Would you try to find cover or just stand in the open to fight? I'm not saying that hiding in Mosques is right, but I understand the mentality of not trying to fight openly when you're way outgunned.

I have no doubt that mistakes get made, but are you saying that our military doesn't know how to target the bad guys?

I'M not saying it. What's happened over the past few years says it. British troops killed because intelligence let the aircraft on the spot down. Reporters killed because intelligence was wrong. Civilians killed because intelligence is inaccurate. Targetting them isn't the problem - it's making sure the right people get targetted that's the problem.

The Taliban and AQ escaped to Pakistan. Unfortunately, Pakistan is a nuclear armed islamic state with a strong and radical population. YOu remember the air strikes last year that caused Musharref problems, what would an invasion done? No easy answers. Why are some Democrats calling for a withdrawel from Afghanistan now?

You still didn't address my point about why Bush apparently doesn't care where Bin Laden is any more. And either we're going to do the job properly or we shouldn't be trying to do the job at all. Afghanistan was not done properly. Are we going to actually finish the job or not? With most of our troops tied up in Iraq, I'd say we're not.

Are you saying that it was the Americans and not Al Queda that blew up the dome? I have no doubt that there are some that in Iraq that want to blame the US for it, especially those on the payroll of Iran.

Again, I'm not saying it but it is being said by the Iraqis. Nice touch trying to swing it to Iran, by the way, but Iraqis on both sides of the divide are saying it.

If the chaos and turmoil would die down, there would be no need for US Troops to stay. Since you hint that this is done for the sake of lucrative defense contracts, I can see that you are of the opinion that this war is for profit, freedom and liberty from tyranny be damned.

Bingo. Well done. You grasped it. It IS being done for profit. Freedom and liberty from tyranny HAVE been damned. Now it's utter chaos, nothing is controlled any more, and there are accusations of corruption against what passes for a government. So yes, I don't deny I AM of that opinion.

Was Iran already seeking nuclear technology previously, before the invasion? Do you really think that Iran would stop persuing Nukes if the US withdrew from Iraq? Don't they have a problem with Israel as well?

Yes they do, but it's not as big a problem as they have with us camping aircraft carriers on their doorstep and offering Israel a free pass to conduct bombing raids on them. If Iraqi airspace was neutral to both sides perhaps this wouldn't be escalating, but as it is Israel wants to bomb Iran and the US is quite prepared to let it, rather than use Iraq as a buffer to both sides. Remember, Iran has always said it's after nuclear power for CIVILIAN use. It's only other countries that have accused it of being out to get military nuclear weapons.

True, which is why indigenous security forces must be built up from peoples of all parts of the population, and not just from a single sect of society as was previously.

Which is where dictatorships hold an edge over democracy. Like it or not, there WAS control under Saddam. It may not have been fair, but it was control. And it was by Iraqis, not a foreign occupation.

I don't understand, are you saying that the Iraqi's didn't want to be liberated from Saddam. When the French became insurgents, did they blow up children, car bomb market places, blow up cathedrals, assasintated innocent people etc etc?

In the same way as the vast majority of Americans like thinking about Paris Hilton rather than discussing President Bush, no, they didn't. If Saddam didn't directly impact their lives, many of them couldn't care less. The upheavel since the invasion, however, is affecting a LOT more lives. Given the cost of this "liberation" some Iraqis have already said they were better off under Saddam.

I'm sure you are correct that there is a tremendous amount of conspiracy theories running around over there, propaganda is a powerful instrument. I mean, even you hint that continuous of this war is for lucrative defense contracts.

You can't think of any way to disprove it, though, can you?

How do you feel about people like Michael Yon, Bill Roggio, Crittenton (sp?)

I feel that they have important things to say. But I wasn't in a nice, military safe haven in Iraq. I was working for the Red Crescent (Red Cross for those of you who refuse to talk about non-christian religions.) I lived with ordinary Iraqis, I didn't live where I was shielded from attacks and danger. I don't discount their views, but I do present a different picture because my perspective was different.

I don't know what the goals are and whether or not they are realistic, so I wouldn't be able to comment on that. Even here in the US, it seems like congress can't get anything done. After all, what goals for the Democratic congress in withdrawing troops have been met? Things take time, how much I don't know.

I had to read that several times before I could believe what you just wrote. On the one hand you're saying the Democrats are utterly wrong to impose a timetable, and on the other hand you're crowing about the fact they haven't been able to because of Bush's stubbornness. Unbelievable.

Theres a word from running away from Al Queda, its "surrender".

So remind me again why Bush doesn't care about Bin Laden any more?

For those here that believe that defeat is the only alternative, I offer the following statement:

"Americans, wrote Robert Kagan and William Kristol in September 2004, “have a profound moral obligation to the Iraqi people.” In this one instance, the two well-known neoconservatives got it exactly right. Today we confront the question of how best to acquit that obligation.

For the war’s supporters, even as their numbers dwindle, the answer remains self-evident: our moral obligation requires us to persevere until peace is restored and justice guaranteed for all Iraqis. To withdraw prematurely would be tantamount to betrayal. Morally speaking, we have no alternative but to persist. For those keen to stay the course in Iraq, moral reasoning and policy preferences neatly coincide.

For the war’s opponents, the issue is more complicated. Those complications include a growing awareness that however great the US responsibility for the situation in Iraq, that responsibility is not one that Americans collectively are shouldering. Instead, “we” have off-loaded our responsibility onto the backs of a relative handful of US troops, many currently serving their second or third combat tour.

While a few bear the burden of the nation’s horrific moral obligation, the many carry on as if the Iraq war did not exist. Day by day, as the fighting drags on, “we” are accruing an ever-increasing moral debt not only to the Iraqis whose lives we have upended but also to the soldiers acting as our agents in this enterprise.

How, if at all, can the US discharge its obligations not only to the people of Iraq but to our own soldiers as well?

For the war’s supporters, confident that that the “surge” is working, the answer is clear: fight on, winning the victory that Iraqis and the troops both deserve.

For those opposing the war, it’s not so easy. However much they may want out of Iraq, few are willing simply to disregard the moral quagmire into which the nation has waded. Leaving Iraqis in the lurch certainly qualifies as problematic. Yet for those who see the war as wrong or ill-advised or merely lost, continuing to send American soldiers to fight and die in such a cause is equally untenable.

A morally acceptable approach to closing down the war will resolve this conundrum, ending the conflict in a way that keeps faith with ordinary Iraqis and with our own troops. In short, the war’s opponents must align their moral concerns, which are complex, with their seemingly straightforward policy prescription.

That alignment becomes possible if we recognize that America’s obligation is not to Iraq but to Iraqis. As a nation-state, Iraq – awash with sectarian violence and lacking legitimate institutions – can hardly be said to exist. We owe Iraq nothing.

In contrast, we owe the Iraqis whose lives we have blighted quite a lot. We should repay that debt much as we (partially at least) repaid our debt to the people of South Vietnam after 1975: by offering them sanctuary. In the decade after the fall of Saigon, some half-million Vietnamese refugees settled in the United States. Here, they found what they were unable to find in their own country: safety, liberty, and the opportunity for a decent life. It was the least we could do.

The least we can do for Iraqis today is to extend a similar invitation."

Hear..hear. But you won't hear this from the anti-war crowd. No, they're only concerned about their political power and totally disregard our military's well being or the future of the Iraqi people.

But I thought the Dem party was the party of compassion....puke! Selfish, insensitive lot you are.

The arab "nation" will resume killing themselves (for us) absent foreigners to kill.

Iraq could be partitioned into a 3 state federal entity & we could focus on attacking the trans-national jihadists w a down-sized, specialized force.

If a full-flegded sectarian war ensues the sunni Syrian Baathists supporting the sunni Iraqi Baathists could be drawn into conflict w Iran who, in turn, support the shia in Iraq.

This could further cause a Hezzabolah v Hamas conflict all the while the Palistinians remain devided.

tactically let the arabs kill themselves while we focus on the trans-national islamists.

well put kblack. i think its amply clear to most rational individuals (whom are able to disentangle themselves from any ideological bent) that bush is talking out of his a** (to put it ever so bluntly). while repeated attempts to put 9/11 and Iraq in the same sentence may have worked back in 2003, most americans know that they had nothing to do with each other and that the only reason we are fighting al qaeda in iraq (are they really al qaeda?) is because they found opportunity to populate the country, taking full advantage of the reigning sectarian chaos, lack of security, and wide-open borders. in short - we gave would-be terrorists the greatest gift of all: targets, training, and global visibility. and WORSE - they're all going to follow us back home!

and yet, here we have george bush telling us to trust his policies because they are working to destroy terrorists, they are helping to bring democracy to the region, and they are making our homeland safer.

nevermind that he just hyperventilated about the risks of all of these iraqi-bred terrorists jumping on the subaqueous terror train© to invade our shores and attack our children whilst they lay sleeping peacefully in their beds.

anyone get the disconnect here? you can't have it both ways, chimpy!

postscript - i should note that 90 percent of the violence in iraq is sectarian and really has nothing to do with al qaeda. the idea that we are primarily fighting al qaeda is another rovian construct to give the false appearance that iraq is part of the GWOT (though i shudder to employ that term).

Unfortunately, the defeatist Democrats seem to believe in their ideology as strong as they do too. Imagine if they believed in ours and stood against the terrorists instead of supporting them.

Posted by: Lew Waters at July 11, 2007 01:51 AM

Lew,
You act as though only Democrats have this attitude, but even on this blog independents and Republicans are tired of this joke of a strategy. Why poll Iraq instead of the American people who are footing the bill? I would much rather see our money spent to better America.

So remind us again why we should believe an anti-American like yourself that spews hatred for our military and sides with the likes of Al Sadr and his militia?

All we expect is honesty PS. So go ahead, say it...I hate America...go on, it's easy.

Obviously you never asked an Iraqi how many friends or family members had been murdered by Saddam's forces before the invaision, over his 24 year reign, otherwise you'd know that Saddam averaged more killings annually than anyone could count, and by the size of the mass graves discovered post invaision, the numbers could go into the millions.

Now, we've all heard, "This isn't the reason we invaded" and "what about WMDs" and blah..blah...blah, but who cares PS? No one should care except our military and the Iraqi people...in that order, and "we" the American people should support our military that "our" representatives--not just mine and not just yours--sent into war...ya think?

JAF - i can at least respect the tenor of your rebuttal.

BTW PS, and any kook that argues that humanitarian reasons were not "a reason" for the Iraq invaision is cherry-pikin to justify their hatred for GWB.

If you don't support our policy to prevent or subdue genocide, I guess you don't support a humanitarian effort in Darfur, nor did you support our efforts in Bosnia. With this admission, I would suggest that it is the anti-war movement that was/is responsible for the millions of genocidal deaths around the world over the past 100 years.

well put kblack. - conman

Yes, both of you tow the left wing talking points very well.

I have one, simple question for the war supporters:

When is long enough?

If the political front continues to remain stagnant, and violence continues to grow, how long should we stay?

10 years? 20 years? 30? 35? 40?

It's a serious question... You say "as long as it takes?" Can we seriously afford billions of dollars per month for a half-century? Can we, with conscience, allow our soldiers to fight their hands to the bone (extended tours) for a half century? What happens if Russia, China, or Iran becomes aggressive while most of our military is bogged down in Iraq?

Ok, that was a few questions, but I would like to see your answers?

Sarah, with respect to your experience in Iraq, I was wondering if you could ask a few questions...

1. What's your opinion about how deeply felt the sectarian divide is? Has it become too deep to heal without a bloodbath?

2. What do Iraqis think (Sunni, Shia, and Kurd, if you know) about Iran?

Nothing but a shell game going on here. Bush/Cheney cooked up this war. Hillary voted for the war and continues to insist her war will still mean (1) occupation of Iraq and (2) the theft of Iraqi oil resources. And you all mock her efforts when they dove-tail with George (Prinze of Babylon)Bush?

Same with Obama and Edwards. No one (not even Harry (WeakT)Reid and Nancy (Fancy) Pelosi is going to challenge the objectives of the war (see above)only who is going to get the credit.

These are two wings of the WarParty and any attempt by Clinton et.al. to legitimize this illegal/immoral war is to be complicit in the war crimes of the Bush Cabal of Evil. A war crime is a war crime is a war crime.

...Some in America don't believe we're at war, and that's their right. I know we are, and therefore, will spend my time as the President doing the best I can to educate people about the perils of the world in which we live, and that we have an active strategy in dealing with it.

It's pretty easy to not believe we're at war, since we haven't acted like it. 160,000 troops? Pffft. How many boots did we have on the ground in Germany in '45?

Tax cut? During wartime? Please.

The longer this farce goes on, the more I've got to believe that the total incompetence in the prosecution of this war has been completely intentional. To all you war defenders, here's a serious question. Think back to the earliest days of the planning of the invasion and ask yourself this very simple thing:

What did you think was going to happen?

We're spending $10 billion a month for this. That works out annually to a figure that's about 50% higher than Iraq's entire GDP in 2002. Are we getting our money's worth? Hell, are THEY getting our money's worth?

RQ "What happens if Russia, China, or Iran becomes aggressive while most of our military is bogged down in Iraq?"

Are you a terminalist or what? First off, we're a boon to China, so eliminate that one from your list of catastrophic events.

The answer to your initial question is: Until the Iraqis are capable of standing alone. But I'll concede that another year is long enough...no matter where they are at that point. They need to learn to defend themselves..period. Hell, It's just like raising a child, and we'll be there to pick em' up if they fall.

George Bush is NOT at war. The UNITED STATES is.

LaMano

You know it, I know it, most conservatives know it, but the libtards refuse to acknowledge it for political purposes.

...well yes, thanks to george bush (with sole respect to iraq).

"Some in America don't believe we're at war, and that's their right."

As is always the case, I would like to know who these "some in America" are. Our President has an increasingly embarrassing habit of setting up this sort of rhetorical strawman. He asserts that people say something ridiculous, then he ridicules it. Since no one is saying that, no one can argue it.

and i guess to further prove my point made earlier, this just from the AP:

The U.S. military expects al Qaeda in Iraq to strike back with "spectacular attacks" after major U.S.-led offensives that have disrupted its activities, a military spokesman said on Wednesday.

just one simple question - is this supposed to uphold or refute bush's claim that his policy is 'working'?

George Bush is NOT at war. The UNITED STATES is.

Posted by: LaMano at July 11, 2007 11:08 AM

The United States is the referee over a war in Iraq. George Bush is at war with the reality of that.

So remind us again why we should believe an anti-American like yourself that spews hatred for our military and sides with the likes of Al Sadr and his militia? All we expect is honesty PS. So go ahead, say it...I hate America...go on, it's easy.

I'm sure for you to say "I hate America" is easy. But the fact is, I don't hate America. I don't even hate Bush. I disagree with Bush over the war (amongst other things) but that's not the same thing. Bush is ONE elected official, not America. Cheney is ONE elected official, not America. Even if I DID hate Bush, that still would not mean that I hate America.

You are a fine one to talk about honesty! Look at your lie here? You are trying to say that because I don't agree with the war, I hate America - that's a lie. Remove the log from your own eye before you start lecturing me about the speck in mine!

Obviously you never asked an Iraqi how many friends or family members had been murdered by Saddam's forces before the invaision, over his 24 year reign, otherwise you'd know that Saddam averaged more killings annually than anyone could count, and by the size of the mass graves discovered post invaision, the numbers could go into the millions.

I like the way you say "obviously" like somehow you know the answer. You don't. You haven't a clue. I've spoken to a number of Iraqi families, and the common opinion (in, as a matter of fact, 9 out of the 11 families I asked) is that unless you crossed Saddam Hussein or were openly critical of his policies then you weren't at direct risk. 7 out of the 11 had neither friends nor family members who had been imprisoned. The other two had run afoul of fairly minor laws. But there's more to it than that. The quality of life is also important. While Saddam was in power, there was electricity for more than 10 hours a day - now they're lucky to get 4. There was running water 24 hours a day - now there sometimes isn't running water at all in a 24 hour period, and other times it only runs for a few hours. They weren't at risk from being attacked by the other faction because Saddam didn't tolerate it, and would execute ANYONE stepping out of line. Now they wonder every time they go shopping if they're going to get blown up.

Where are you getting these figures of millions, by the way? I'm interested to know what your source is, and - as people here have accused unnamed sources of unreliability - whether or not you can name and point to these sources?

Now, we've all heard, "This isn't the reason we invaded" and "what about WMDs" and blah..blah...blah, but who cares PS? No one should care except our military and the Iraqi people...in that order, and "we" the American people should support our military that "our" representatives--not just mine and not just yours--sent into war...ya think?

NOW who hates America? Who should care? EVERYONE should care, because America's reputation in the world is being affected by the events going on in Iraq. And in case it slipped your notice, the original justification was WMD - itself a lie! So we went to war based on a lie. The whole world watched as we went to war based on a lie, and now you're telling us that nobody should care? Are you serious? America's reputation in the world is being trashed by a handful of officials and we shouldn't care?

BTW PS, and any kook that argues that humanitarian reasons were not "a reason" for the Iraq invaision is cherry-pikin to justify their hatred for GWB.

Maybe it was A reason, but it wasn't THE MAIN reason. And you have to ask, that if it had been the main reason that was put forward, would we have gone to war? Would the president have got his approval? I would say not. So anyone who is arguing that we should have gone to war for "humanitarian" reasons is trying to pick cherries from an empty tree to justify the unjustifyable.

And I'd appreciate it if you didn't label me a "kook" since my reasons make more sense than your arguments, plus I've been brave enough to go over there while you stay at home and use relatives who were brave enough as a reason that you are brave enough. Again, unjustifiable.

I now address Ricorun's questions:

1. What's your opinion about how deeply felt the sectarian divide is? Has it become too deep to heal without a bloodbath?

It depends on where in the country you are. Some places still cling to the sense of community, others accuse each other of being either in league with the occupation or in league with Al-Qaeda. Certainly some areas, yes, I would say that it is, and those are generally the areas you hear about on the news, where they're already waging war on one another. There is ALREADY a bloodbath there. It's not going to get better if we leave, but it's going to get worse whether we leave or not. Islam is not a forgiving religion, and with some communities where hotheads on both sides accuse the other side of being heretics... it's not a problem anyone can easily solve.

2. What do Iraqis think (Sunni, Shia, and Kurd, if you know) about Iran?

Again, it's divided, but this time into three camps. The first group blame Al-Qaeda and Iran for the problems. The second group blame America for the problems and believe that the "crusaders" intend to attempt to destroy Iran next. The third camp don't care either way, and hold the same opinion as with anyone else - that Iran can think and behave however it likes, so long as it stays within its own borders. You can ask different families and get as many different responses as people you ask - but there is less anger generally about Iran than there is about either Britain or America, even despite the fact that Iran and Iraq were at war so long. Certainly western towns far from the Iranian border don't give a hoot. Generally it depends on the individual from my experience, and it's difficult to pin down "Sunni think this, Shia think that, Kurd think the other." It's generally very mixed.

To qualify the figures in my last post:

11 families asked
9 said that unless you crossed Saddam directly or spoke out against him publicly there was no problem
7 families had experienced no problems with the law
2 families had family members or friends that had experienced problems with the law on a minor scale (civil or criminal)
1 family had a family member vanish after saying something controversial. The family member hasn't been heard of since.
3 families had members or friends who had been punished for moderate or major civil or criminal offenses, but these people blamed the family member or friend rather than the regime

Wow, there sure is alot of BDS blow-off over this thread.

Likening "Collateral Damage" to human shield warfare. I just shake my head in shame. At first glance I'm surprised people actually think that way, then glance again, and I'm not so surprised.

And ah yes, the "Oil" came up again. How long before you people put that one to rest?

Conscriptor thinks that if you poll Iraqis, they'll show that they believe they were better off with Saddamm. Show me some proof of that? You got a poll showing that? You seem pretty dead certain that you're right. Based on what intelligence.

"I'm sure you are correct that there is a tremendous amount of conspiracy theories running around over there, propaganda is a powerful instrument. I mean, even you hint that continuous of this war is for lucrative defense contracts."

"You can't think of any way to disprove it, though, can you?"-P.S.

Can you prove you're right P.S?

Personally I thought it was very well done speech.

"And so I made the decision, rather than pulling out of the capital, to send more troops in the capital, all aimed at providing security, so that an alternative system could grow. I listened to the commanders that would be running the operation -- in this case, the main man is a man named General David Petraeus -- a smart, capable man, who gives me his candid advice. His advice, Mr. President, is we must change the mission to provide security for the people in the capital city of Iraq, as well as in Anbar Province, in order for the progress that the 12 million people who voted can be made. That's why we've done what we've done."

Yes, lets remember that the Iraqis voted for that progress. I believe many people here are forgetting that.

"Also, we don't know WHO we're killing. From several thousand feet up, to a helicopter gunship everyone is a stick figure on a thermal imaging camera. That's a scientific reality. Given that the only confirmation of a target then comes from "intelligence" (the same department responsible for linking WMD and Al-Q with Iraq) this is a recipe for disaster"

-What paramedic experience do you posses that gives you a competent knowledge of weapons targeting systems? The "Stickfigure" bullshit you gave is ridicously oversimplfied.

I'll tell you what, we'll start fighting with rose petals, and butterflys. That way people dont get hurt. Oh wait, you'd be out of job then. Damn, scratch that.

I figure by the amount of bloviation from our resident libs, that Pres. Bush had a good speech.

Sarah, may I suggest you and those that call our President a liar, go back and read Bush's 2002 SOTU speech, before you pass judgement. It really is worth refreshing your memory.

BTW, after 14 years of being privy to DOE sightings of WMD's...yes that's right, in Iraq and around the world, including Libya, I believe my "argument" of defending this war is as just as your argument against. I simply believe that you have liberal tendencies that leave your opinion less than credible (having gone to Iraq or not is irrelevant since Sean Penn has been there also) when it comes to understanding the infinite reasons why terrorists/tribes do what they do....people lie all the time as you know. Especially with the language barriers that exist...even between tribes, the dialects and religious divides have been intact for centuries and to try to cure this divide will take more time than the American people can stomach.

I too am for ending this war, but not in the same way the Dem party desires to end it, nor will I advocate a policy for withdrawl based on one persons personal encounter with a handful of Iraqis.

In closing please note that my son served for nine years in the US Navy as a rescue swimmer, with two tours in the Persian Gulf, and that two of my closest friends family members have served in Iraq and Afghanistan for multiple tours of duty. So as you can see, I like many here are privy to first hand experiences of the war zone and don't take kindly to our President and/or his admistration being condemned for an attmept at a noble cause.

Have a great day! I mean it.

paramedic - you do a fine, level-headed job of addressing a problem that is pervasive among some who comment on this blog - that is the tendency (a very simplistic, myopic, and demagogic one at that) to equate dissent with anti-americanism. it is a childish charge that we see consistently from a few. i think it's safe to say that those that employ this kind of base response are really using it to deflect the merits of the argument that dissenters try to put forth in a rational manner.

Right on Sarah!

I also need to fix my glasses...excuse the typos.

Sarah, may I suggest you and those that call our President a liar, go back and read Bush's 2002 SOTU speech, before you pass judgement. It really is worth refreshing your memory.

While we're talking about State of the Union Addresses, maybe you should re-read Presiden't Bush's 2003 address, in the context of the various lies and distortions that have been made obvious since he gave it.

I too am for ending this war, but not in the same way the Dem party desires to end it, nor will I advocate a policy for withdrawl based on one persons personal encounter with a handful of Iraqis.

Would you care to explain your criteria for ending the war, then? What you see as the main methods of doing so, of telling that the plan is working and what timescale you envisage?

In closing please note that my son served for nine years in the US Navy as a rescue swimmer, with two tours in the Persian Gulf, and that two of my closest friends family members have served in Iraq and Afghanistan for multiple tours of duty. So as you can see, I like many here are privy to first hand experiences of the war zone and don't take kindly to our President and/or his admistration being condemned for an attmept at a noble cause.

With all due respect, and noting that, none of these things relates to the on-the-ground situation in Iraq. While I do respect your accomplishments, I do not see how they equate to the amount of knowledge of the situation in Iraq that you are inferring you have.

Being POTUS is a very difficult job. I certainly wouldn't want to do it. But the problem here is a lack of transparency that goes much further than just not being able to see clearly what data was available prior to the war, but that actually appears to indicate that war in Iraq had been planned for a long time before the actual invasion. My criticism of the President, the Vice President and others is that not only are we NOT being allowed to see or discuss the quality of evidence behind the decision to go to war, but that things that have proven to be untrue continue to be thrown around as reasons to justify what has become a complete nightmare.

Mr Bush took the wrong direction in the opinion of many, but he's done himself no favours by refusing to even consider that he might be wrong, and instead pressing ahead with an agenda based on the assumption that in fact he was right, the evidence was right and the reason was right in the first place.

THIS is my primary issue with Mr Bush and indeed Mr Cheney. That the evidence and the intelligence has proved to be incorrect, but that they have both pushed forward as if it was correct. The stubbornness of "I'm right, the rest of America is wrong" is not the mark of a good president, whatever his name is.

PS states:"To qualify the figures in my last post:

11 families asked
9 said that unless you crossed Saddam directly or spoke out against him publicly there was no problem (what city and tribe)
7 families had experienced no problems with the law (as is usual with law abiding citizens, which you met with)
2 families had family members or friends that had experienced problems with the law on a minor scale (civil or criminal) ( again, I can't imagine that you met with criminals or Baathists)
1 family had a family member vanish after saying something controversial. The family member hasn't been heard of since. ( multiply this incident x 25mil.)
3 families had members or friends who had been punished for moderate or major civil or criminal offenses, but these people blamed the family member or friend rather than the regime" ( again, were the people you met with good or bad?)

Sarah, these are numbers anyone could pull out of their arse!

I'm curious to know if you were there to uncover the truth, or to simply deliver home a statement against our involvment?

There are also an number of embed journalists in Iraq that carry the anti-war flag for the Dem party here at home that on the surface, offer a pro-American view to the troops and then twist their rhetoric to appease the anti-war movement at home....hmm, makes one wonder who to believe?

Sarah, these are numbers anyone could pull out of their arse!

I take your point, and I don't have any "evidence" in terms of written statements. All I have is what I have heard from them, but I would put to you that those accounts WERE first hand, whereas much of the speculation that appears to go on here is not.

I'm curious to know if you were there to uncover the truth, or to simply deliver home a statement against our involvment?

Neither. I was there to be a healer. I'm air-trained, and a paramedic with over 14 years of service. I was in Iraq as a volunteer to drive an ambulance (such as they are over there) and to try to save lives. I didn't go out there with a "learn the truth" crusade, or to decide for or against. I went out there because I have professional skills that are in demand.

You were saying about your own ideas about getting out of the situation we're in right now? I can't find where you've started putting them forward.

You act as though only Democrats have this attitude, but even on this blog independents and Republicans are tired of this joke of a strategy. Why poll Iraq instead of the American people who are footing the bill? I would much rather see our money spent to better America.

Read around a bit, rockville, I also include White Flag Republicans, or Turncoat Republicans often.

MOst Americans don't have a clue what is going on there, other than the lopsided anti-Bush agenda driven reporting they receive from the alphabet lamestream news and papers equally driven by BDS. They are never given any word of the many success's happening. Why do you think so many returning from there spend a lot of time telling others, as we did in Viet Nam, that what you are being told isn't what is happening? Sadly, it falls on deaf ears as sheeple have been conditioned to only expect bad news, especially about our Military and Republicans in general.

As for our money being spent, I venture a guess that it is far cheaper to face them now, over there than to sit back and wait for them to become more active here.

Abandoning Iraq will lead to abandoning Afghanistan and give the radical jihadists two nations to operate out of and train in.

When do we stop abandoning struggling allies?

Al-Qaeda are an internationally recognised terrorist group. Bush and Cheney haven't yet gained international recognition in western countries. So your opponent has helicopter gunships and tanks, while you have machine guns and RPGs. Would you try to find cover or just stand in the open to fight? I'm not saying that hiding in Mosques is right, but I understand the mentality of not trying to fight openly when you're way outgunned.
I think we are too far apart on even the basics to agree and unfortunately I have no way of getting started. I have no love for Bill Clinton (nor hate either) and agreed when he sent troops to Somalia for humanitarian reasons or bombed Serbia. But in neither of those instances do I consider him a terrorist, would you?

I'M not saying it. What's happened over the past few years says it. British troops killed because intelligence let the aircraft on the spot down. Reporters killed because intelligence was wrong. Civilians killed because intelligence is inaccurate.
You are correct, mistakes are made. Would you agree that journalists are targeted by the terrorists?

Targetting them isn't the problem - it's making sure the right people get targetted that's the problem.
Which is why terrorists hide among the population..

You still didn't address my point about why Bush apparently doesn't care where Bin Laden is any more. And either we're going to do the job properly or we shouldn't be trying to do the job at all. Afghanistan was not done properly. Are we going to actually finish the job or not?
He should care where he's at. As you know, there are task force teams that are searching for him and Zawahiri. As far as Afghanistan goes and what needs to be done, (more troops?), it seems that a lot of the problem stems from the Pakistani side of the border. Why more isn't being done there I don't know. I'm pretty critical of Bush because I view him as not being aggressive enough.
What would you suggest be done to properly do Afghanistan? If your answer is more troops, what would you say to the Democrats who are calling for a pullout of there as well?

"Are you saying that it was the Americans and not Al Queda that blew up the dome? I have no doubt that there are some that in Iraq that want to blame the US for it, especially those on the payroll of Iran."
-Again, I'm not saying it but it is being said by the Iraqis. Nice touch trying to swing it to Iran, by the way, but Iraqis on both sides of the divide are saying it.
I wasn't implying that Iran was the one doing the bombing, but Iran (Al Sadr) could take advantage of the situation to pin blame on the Americans. As far as some iraqi's saying it was the American's, I don't know how many can actually believe that. I hear time and time again that conspiracy theories are a dime a dozen over there. I've read somewhere that a majority of Iraqi's believe that most Americans are jewish. Propaganda is a powerful thing.

...I can see that you are of the opinion that this war is for profit, freedom and liberty from tyranny be damned.
-Bingo. Well done. You grasped it. It IS being done for profit. Freedom and liberty from tyranny HAVE been damned. Now it's utter chaos, nothing is controlled any more, and there are accusations of corruption against what passes for a government. So yes, I don't deny I AM of that opinion.
I don't know how to start with a response but I guess I should say this. You may believe that Bush had alternative motives (oil, profit) for a war in Iraq, but the men and women who are actually on the ground are not laying their lives on the line if they believe that the whole thing is for Halliburton. I wouldn't.

Remember, Iran has always said it's after nuclear power for CIVILIAN use. It's only other countries that have accused it of being out to get military nuclear weapons.
Do you believe them? Do you think the US should do something if it was determined Iran was seeking nuclear technology for military use?

Israel wants to bomb Iran and the US is quite prepared to let it, rather than use Iraq as a buffer to both sides.
Why would Israel want to bomb Iran if the nuclear technology is for Civlian use?

Like it or not, there WAS control under Saddam. It may not have been fair, but it was control. And it was by Iraqis, not a foreign occupation.
The control was by a subset of Iraqis called the Sunnis, who felt that they had the God given right to the best jobs, and education. They also felt that they had the right to rule over the majority of the people thru any means necessary, even if that included chemical liquidation, kidnapping, torture, and assasination. They also felt that they had the right to invade a neighboring country, and annex it for the oil. You are correct, it may not have been fair, but it was control.
If a small group of Americans, say the Texans, had all the guns, education, money, power, and brutally terrorized the rest of the country, but had it "under control", wouldn't you want democracy or would still wish to being under control?

If Saddam didn't directly impact their lives, many of them couldn't care less. The upheavel since the invasion, however, is affecting a LOT more lives.
I doubt that many didn't care, mass graves don't spring up like daiseys. Many knew someone who was either murdered, tortured, kidnapped, or arrested by Sadaam.

Given the cost of this "liberation" some Iraqis have already said they were better off under Saddam.
The Sunnis were definitely better off, never the less, I have no doubt that what you said is true. Which is why the Sunnis and Al Queda allies are trying to make their lives hell, hoping that they will welcome the return of Sunni rule.

I'm sure you are correct that there is a tremendous amount of conspiracy theories running around over there, propaganda is a powerful instrument. I mean, even you hint that continuous of this war is for lucrative defense contracts.
-You can't think of any way to disprove it, though, can you?

I can't prove if aliens were(nt) at Roswell either. Never the less, the people I know that went over there didn't do it so that someone else can make a buck.

"I had to read that several times before I could believe what you just wrote. On the one hand you're saying the Democrats are utterly wrong to impose a timetable, and on the other hand you're crowing about the fact they haven't been able to because of Bush's stubbornness.
No, you misread me. I'm sorry, I'm not a very good writer. What I was trying to say that even in our congress things move at a snails pace. The Democrats in their win are motivated to end the war but haven't done soo yet. Maybe it wasn't a good example, but I was trying to get at the point that I hope that we haven't set the Iraqi government up for failure but setting goals too high.

So as you can see, I like many here are privy to first hand experiences of the war zone and don't take kindly to our President and/or his admistration being condemned for an attmept at a noble cause. Navydad

Not every Vet feels that you can not question any President's or administration's action. That doesn't mean you are anti-american just as getting a second opinion of a diagnosis means you don't want to be cured of a disease.

Navydad, I think you have met your match with Paramedic Sarah. Her comments are concise and knowledgeable. She address your arguments, and those of others, with insight and intelligence that is sorely missing at this blog. When asked to clarify a statement, she does so, without resorting to verbal abuse or name calling. Well done, Sarah!

Sarah,

As you know, in business, timing means everything. I think we can both agree on this.

If I were "the decision maker", there would have been many other avenues that I would have taken to lessen the impact of this war and for one, and foremost, I would have used overwhelming force.

Secondly, I believe the time is right to allow Iraqis to fall, but just a little though, and catch them just before they hit dirt so they know we'll be there, but that we haven't abandoned them. For how long; as long as the American voter will allow it. If this means the implementation of a Dem plan, so be it.

I can tell you that victory will never be in the form of a handshake with our enemy, conversely, we'll be in this GWOT for many generations to come, and as I see it (which you may not agree with..but oh well) the GWOT, now that it has surfaced like a cicada, will need to be dealt with on an ongoing basis over generations.
To put the GWOT into perspective, it has just begun and until the last extremist has been dealt with, it will never go away...contrary to what many liberals believe.

Yes CO, she is quite the handful...isn't she.
Hat tip to PS.

Sarah-

Your posts here are both very enlightening and well argued. Bravo for your humanitarian service as well.

It is interesting to note, that in the few months I have been coming to this site I can not recall anyone else who has actually been to Iraq talk about their experiences there.

Of course we have those who say thier relatives who are in country and that they are pro-war and want to continue until the "job is done" etc. I have no reason to doubt their accounts but it does seem odd that of all the pro-war cheerleaders on this site none have been involved personally in this war effort. Just an interesting observation.

BEl

You're confusing our loyalty for our military and our President as pro-war "cheerleading", which is offensive, but not unexpected from such a young tyke as yourself...LOL!

I think we are too far apart on even the basics to agree and unfortunately I have no way of getting started. I have no love for Bill Clinton (nor hate either) and agreed when he sent troops to Somalia for humanitarian reasons or bombed Serbia. But in neither of those instances do I consider him a terrorist, would you?

A terrorist, by the definition, works to accomplish his ends by causing a state of terror in his opponents, thereby complying them to do his will because they fear the results of not doing so. Anybody who has had their door kicked in at 3am in the morning by armed troops who search the premises and then have to admit that the intelligence that led to the raid was wrong, would tell you that they were terrified by the experience. To foster a situation where acting on intelligence supplied by one biased party, be it Sunni or Shia, causes terror makes one an accessory to the terror that causes. As CIC of the military overall, that means that the commander takes responsibility for the actions of his men. By proxy, this makes Mr Bush a terrorist by the definition of the word.

Was Mr Clinton when he sent troops to Somalia? Maybe. I don't deny that if you apply strict logic to it you could say yes. But that's another topic, possibly to be debated at a time when Iraq isn't the main focus of attention.

You are correct, mistakes are made. Would you agree that journalists are targeted by the terrorists?

Yes I would. Journalists have also been targetted by allied forces. Mistake or deliberate isn't for me to judge, but it has happened.

Which is why terrorists hide among the population..

There's more than an ounce of truth in something that the producers of a science fiction series pulled out: "There's a reason why you separate the military and the police. One fights the enemy of the state. The other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, the enemies of the state tend to become the people." This is what's happening here. The people are becoming the enemy. Granted some of them may be, but once you start regarding the people as a whole as "the enemy" you set a VERY dangerous president.

He should care where he's at. As you know, there are task force teams that are searching for him and Zawahiri. As far as Afghanistan goes and what needs to be done, (more troops?), it seems that a lot of the problem stems from the Pakistani side of the border. Why more isn't being done there I don't know. I'm pretty critical of Bush because I view him as not being aggressive enough.
What would you suggest be done to properly do Afghanistan? If your answer is more troops, what would you say to the Democrats who are calling for a pullout of there as well?

Prevention is better than cure. I wouldn't have even LEFT Afghanistan until he'd been found. Are we now saying that Pakistan is untouchable because they have nuclear weapons? Where does that leave the moral issue? Either we will do 'whatever it takes' to catch Al-Qaeda's leaders, in which case if that means covert operations into Pakistan so be it, or we're of a mind to forget about Bin Laden in which case why are we even pretending to want to fight Al-Qaeda?

I wasn't implying that Iran was the one doing the bombing, but Iran (Al Sadr) could take advantage of the situation to pin blame on the Americans. As far as some iraqi's saying it was the American's, I don't know how many can actually believe that. I hear time and time again that conspiracy theories are a dime a dozen over there. I've read somewhere that a majority of Iraqi's believe that most Americans are jewish. Propaganda is a powerful thing.

But are you making the argument that just because you are correct that Iran COULD take advantage of it to pin the blame on the Americans this automatically means that it couldn't possibly be Americans? Because I'm afraid I just don't buy that. I don't know either way, and until I see proper evidence, I am not ruling ANYTHING out, be it CIA inspiring sectarian hatred or Iran trying to get the blame pinned on America.

I don't know how to start with a response but I guess I should say this. You may believe that Bush had alternative motives (oil, profit) for a war in Iraq, but the men and women who are actually on the ground are not laying their lives on the line if they believe that the whole thing is for Halliburton. I wouldn't.
In which case you'd be shot for desertion. The men and women laying their lives on the line are in the military. You don't get to pick and choose. Whether you think Halliburton is your boss or your cause is just makes no difference. You get orders, you obey those orders. That's what being in the army is all about.

Do you believe them? Do you think the US should do something if it was determined Iran was seeking nuclear technology for military use?
I would like to believe them, yes. I'd like to believe what the reports by the UN inspectorate are saying, that Iran is actually starting to scale down production. But quite honestly, it doesn't matter to me. Do I think that if Iran ever got military nuclear capability it would attack Israel? Possibly. Do I believe it would ever attack the US? No.

Why would Israel want to bomb Iran if the nuclear technology is for Civlian use?
Because Iran getting any kind of nuclear technology opens the door in the future for it to be turned to military use, thereby altering a balance of power which Israel wants to keep firmly in its favour.

The control was by a subset of Iraqis called the Sunnis, who felt that they had the God given right to the best jobs, and education. They also felt that they had the right to rule over the majority of the people thru any means necessary, even if that included chemical liquidation, kidnapping, torture, and assasination. They also felt that they had the right to invade a neighboring country, and annex it for the oil. You are correct, it may not have been fair, but it was control.
If a small group of Americans, say the Texans, had all the guns, education, money, power, and brutally terrorized the rest of the country, but had it "under control", wouldn't you want democracy or would still wish to being under control?

And yet Mr Bush has openly defied many of the articles of the Constitution of the United States. If you were a gitmo inmate, would you want to pursue this line of the administration not brutally holding control? Especially if it subsequently turned out that you were innocent... but we can't know the innocence or guilt because these people aren't even being tried in a court of law. In the meantime they remain locked up, terrorised if you will, and there are many accusations of torture flying around. Which would you prefer to be - a resident of Iraq who, if quiet and discreet would be left alone, or an "enemy combatant" with ALL your rights suddenly denied you, including the right to know what evidence - if any - your captors held against you?

I doubt that many didn't care, mass graves don't spring up like daiseys. Many knew someone who was either murdered, tortured, kidnapped, or arrested by Sadaam.
It's your right to doubt that. It's not your right to force that doubt on somebody else as if it's truth.

The Sunnis were definitely better off, never the less, I have no doubt that what you said is true. Which is why the Sunnis and Al Queda allies are trying to make their lives hell, hoping that they will welcome the return of Sunni rule.
If that's so then Al-Qaeda are completely wrong to, because it won't happen. To a devout Sunni, a Shia muslim isn't to be tolerated because they're heretical. To a devout Shia, a Sunni muslim isn't to be tolerated because they're heretical. We're seeing the same partisan vehemence that we're seeing in America where to a Republican a Democrat is automatically wrong and to a Democrat a Republican is automatically wrong. The only difference is, Iraq is flooded with firearms and has no effective rule of law any more. So they go out and shoot and bomb one another.

I can't prove if aliens were(nt) at Roswell either. Never the less, the people I know that went over there didn't do it so that someone else can make a buck.

Do I really need to research and post here all the links with members of the administration and major defense or oil companies? Because those links ARE there, people on boards, people with major shareholdings... all of which is more substatial evidence than aliens at Roswell.

Anyone with major shareholdings 'makes a buck' when those companies do well. Defense and military supply companies do well out of wars. Oil companies will do well if legislation is passed allocating them the bulk of Iraqi oil funds. This is a lot more substantial evidence than your example.

No, you misread me. I'm sorry, I'm not a very good writer. What I was trying to say that even in our congress things move at a snails pace. The Democrats in their win are motivated to end the war but haven't done soo yet. Maybe it wasn't a good example, but I was trying to get at the point that I hope that we haven't set the Iraqi government up for failure but setting goals too high.

Okay thanks for that clarification. Minor heart attack averted ;)

As you know, in business, timing means everything. I think we can both agree on this. If I were "the decision maker", there would have been many other avenues that I would have taken to lessen the impact of this war and for one, and foremost, I would have used overwhelming force.

Absolutely. Although we do have the situation that before we invaded, Saddam DID use overwhelming force - and we executed him for it... but it is a very very difficult situation, and the timing did suck; on that we can fully agree :)

Secondly, I believe the time is right to allow Iraqis to fall, but just a little though, and catch them just before they hit dirt so they know we'll be there, but that we haven't abandoned them. For how long; as long as the American voter will allow it. If this means the implementation of a Dem plan, so be it.

Fair enough. No argument there.

I can tell you that victory will never be in the form of a handshake with our enemy, conversely, we'll be in this GWOT for many generations to come, and as I see it (which you may not agree with..but oh well) the GWOT, now that it has surfaced like a cicada, will need to be dealt with on an ongoing basis over generations. To put the GWOT into perspective, it has just begun and until the last extremist has been dealt with, it will never go away...contrary to what many liberals believe.

The problem that comes from that is defining exactly what a terrorist is, WHERE a terrorist is and how to get at that terrorist, given that with the diversity in the world one persons terrorist is another persons legitimate freedom fighter.

And there lies the crux of the matter, and the difficulty with the entire concept. Terror is a noun, while an object is a verb. You can't wage war on a noun, you have to define the enemy first. Al-Qaeda seems to be surfacing all over the place purely because any government that wants to crack down on someone only had to mention Al-Qaeda and it's like a free pass. Most of the people governments throughout the world crack down on in the name of the GWOT won't be Al-Qaeda or anything to do w