Cynical Nation

Sounds like the plan I have been espousing for the last three years. What's unforgivably sad though is how many American (and Iraqi) lives it took to reach that conclusion.

Should have had you write the executive summary.

so, we'll leave a nation to bleed to death for short term gain, and perverse gloating (and a dozen Hollywood movies to boot)?
sounds like Rwanda to me. It also proves Thomas Paine was right - America is full of sunshine patriots ready to bail when times were rough.

"so, we'll leave a nation to bleed to death for short term gain, and perverse gloating (and a dozen Hollywood movies to boot)?

Rachel,
What you dont seem to understand is that that nation is "already bleeding to death". Iraq is a completely destroyed country with no chance for recovery at this time. Us being or not being there can not change anything at this point. It only results in more unnecessary loss of life among our troops.

We should have never gone into Iraq and someone should be held accountable for that. But that does not change the fact that Iraq is irreversibly destroyed as a result of the decision of the Bush administration to invade it. It is about time we cut our losses and get out. I think we should withdraw immediately.

But but but but...Iraq was a hotbed of Islamo-terror in 2003: it was like pre-invasion Afghanistan...loaded with WMDs, training terrorists, bonding with al-Qaeda, making nukes, plotting against the U.S.
Hell, at least that's what I believed--and I thank god I ain't a US Senator who;d now have to explain how my 100% enthusiasm for the invastion in 2003 has turned to utter disgust with how it's turned out. Thanks to inept execution by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Franks, Bremer, Feith, et al.

fred, explain "ept" as opposed to inept. I love you armchair generals...always know how to run wars

BW: do you even care about Iraqis? or are they just things to you?

originally, I was going to write to apologize for my first reaction. I changed my mind.
Iraq was destroyed before we got there. We were happy to let people starve and get destroyed while we took the oil from the dictator. But instead of condemning Hussein, we'll Johnsonize Bush. And we'll casually forget the Dems and Reps who gave permission in the first place. and don't Dems know that when they are in power, it will be them who will have to deal with it?

I never voted for W so I feel I can say this - let him finish the job. Stop whining over each new "evil" that he does. Maybe if we did that in the first place, things could be better for Iraq.

You're still an armchair general whether you voice an opinion to "stay the course" or to "cut and run."

Iraq wasn’t destroyed before we got there – but remember we got there several decades ago. We created the “dictator” by supporting him in the first place so if we wish to condemn him we ought to remember to look in the mirror first.

And what does “finish the job” even mean? I realize I risk wading into the waters of armchair generalship here, and I’m asking you to do the same – however I really would like to know. By all accounts the only way to quell the hostilities over there would be with a much larger force over a long period of time. How many more American lives need to be put on the line and for how long in order to make it right?
It’s also quite possible that no matter what our intentions are, our presence there is doing more harm then good at this point.

It’s not as simple as cut and run or finish the job, or any other platitudes. It’s an ugly complex mistake and the sad fact is that we may have created a situation in Iraq that needs to run it’s course to burn itself out.

"BW: do you even care about Iraqis? or are they just things to you?"

I certainly care more about them than the people that started that war that resulted in hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. I would have never started that war.

"I never voted for W so I feel I can say this - let him finish the job. "

There is nothing to finish. That country is destroyed and Bush and Blair are responsible for starting that war. There are tens or hundreds of thousands of civilians dead now that would be alive if Bush and Cheney had not started that war. Things are much worse for the Iraqis now and so many of them lost their lifes. And you are telling me that Bush cares about the Iraqis??? Think about it.

Arm chair generals who lately seem to be unrealistic leftwing idealist, are truly amusing, but their pontificating is not very insightful.

So, what shall it be? More real politik? Hippie peace love and happiness? or perhaps blood and guts? Hhhhmmmm, what to do? What to do?

Well I'm no general but here is my unworthy suggestion, not just for Iraq but US foriegn policy in general: How about we root for our own side. Maybe if we were not so busy attacking ourselves we would have more energy and time for the enemy. Perhaps, if we were not so worried about what W. Europe thought we could concentrate on fighting Islam (yes, thats right not Islamofascist or any other false label but simply Islam.). Lastly we have to be honest with ourselves as a nation and people. Do, we want to win against the savages? or do we want the French to like us? The choice is ours.

I know where I stand and it sure as hell isn't with the; defeatist, pinko, crybaby, leftwing Democrats.

"Do, we want to win against the savages? or do we want the French to like us? The choice is ours." (John the Marine)
(John the Marine)


Absolutely, 100% correct.

The WoT is not a war that we started. It's a war we engaged in very belatedly and it's not a war against "Islamic fundamentalists," since Islam has never had a Reformation, traditional Islam IS fundamentalist Islam.

We are at war with Sharia-based Islam and the cult of hatred that permeates the culture of the adherants of Sharia Law.

Rachel, with all due respect, who is the "him" you're talking about? George W. Bush? "HE" isn't doing anything, he is sacrificing nothing. How many American soldiers and Iraqi civilians do YOU think need to die to prop up George W. Bush's ego?

Unlike the rest of the know-it-alls here, I have no answer to the question of what the right thing to do is. Iraq is like the former Yugoslavia -- it may have been ruled by a tyrant, but at least the warring factions weren't warring. We toppled the tyrant, and the factions picked up right where they left off.

Anyone with even a little knowledge of Iraq's history would have known that, but of course there was George Bush's Oedipal issues to think of, and what's destroying a country when saving a man's ego is at stake?

As I said, I don't have any easy answers. I wish I did. But I do know that feeding American kids into tha meatgrinder -- kids that AREN'T Bush's kids or Cheney's kids or McCain's kids (they ARE, however, Jim Webb's kid) -- accomplishes nothing.

"or do we want the French to like us? "

Yes I do. I find nothing wrong to have the French like us. And the rest of europe. Europeans are cool.

"How about we root for our own side. "

Thats exactly what we do. When you see something so wrong done by our president, you have to point it out and tell the truth. Thats real patriotism.

> Jill: Unlike the rest of the know-it-alls here, I have no answer to the question of what the right thing to do is...

Hey, we all can't be go-to Mid-East experts like Sandra Day O'Connor. ;-)

> I find nothing wrong to have the French like us. And the rest of europe. Europeans are cool.

Me neither. All other things being the same, I would prefer the French like us than not. But not at the expense of altering our perceived national interests.

BTW, Europeans are not cool. Just listen to their popular music or watch their TV shows some time. ;)

" All other things being the same, I would prefer the French like us than not. But not at the cost of changing our policy."

Well, just as a reminder, France and Germany had made the correct call on Iraq in 2003. They refused to participate in the invasion of Iraq and they blocked it in the UN. They were right, while Bush and Blair were wrong. If we had listened to them then, we would not be in that mess now.

P.S. As for music, dont forget that essentially all important pieces of classic music originated in Europe :)

> Well, just as a reminder, France and Germany had made the correct call on Iraq in 2003.

It may seem so, but it's because they were essentially on Saddam's payroll. That doesn't make them "cool."

P.S. As for music, dont forget that essentially all important pieces of classic music originated in Europe.
I readily admit that yes, centuries ago, Europe was as cool as it gets. ;-)

Well, just as a reminder, France and Germany had made the correct call on Iraq in 2003. They refused to participate in the invasion of Iraq and they blocked it in the UN. They were right, while Bush and Blair were wrong. If we had listened to them then, we would not be in that mess now.

P.S. As for music, dont forget that essentially all important pieces of classic music originated in Europe :) (BW)
(BW)



France & Germany both made "calls" based purely on their own financial interests - the illicit trade agreements they had with Saddam's Iraq in violation of the "Oil-for-Food" program.

Saddam Hussein's Iraq had been one of the leading State Sponsors of International Terrorism since 1991, a rogue state antithetical to vital U.S. interests (oil & Israel) in that region and his Iraq had forged a pact with al Qaeda - the al Qaeda run Ansar al Islam camps cooperated with Saddam's Iraq against the Kurds.

We're now mired (like it or not...and I like it) in a life and death struggle between the West and Sharia-based Islam. It could take another 25 years (at minimum), or it could take 100 years or more, if we try and negotiate our way out.

Next thing you know, folks like Blue and Jill wil be saying, that "The Dems can't get us out of this war, becasue the Bush administration's reckless actions locked us in and hardened our enemies."

Wrong on all counts - the enemy has always been "hardened" to the West and Sharia-based Islam doesn't seek a negotiated peace, it demands the subjugation of the "infidel."

"Rooting for our side," Blue, means rooting for the destruction of our enemies and an American hegemony via a U.S.-led globalism.


As for music, country, R&B, rock, blue grass and even Rap didn't originate in Europe...and they are all important types of music.

"It may seem so, but it's because they were essentially on Saddam's payroll.

Well then, lets not forget that years ago Saddam was in the payroll of a republican administration, during the Iraq-Iran war. Just for the record.

Iraq was on "America's payroll," Blue and for good reason.

Every single American was down with "eradicating the Communist menace," back then. We take that for granted now, but the Cold War was serious business back then.

Real Americans did not support "striking a bargain," or "forging a negotiated peace," but winning the Cold War, which meant the destruction of either the USSR or the U.S

Hey! Better them than us.

That's why America supported the Contras against the Soviet-backed Sandinistas in Nicaragua, the Iraqis against the Soviet-backed Iranians, and virtually anyone else who opposed Soviet-backed regimes. It was "war by proxy."

I said it back then, and it still stands today, "Show me an American with Sandinista sympathies and I'll show you a rat bastard Commie, every time."

Agreed, JMK, with an exception (naturally!). I don't recall Khomeini's Iran being allied with the Soviets. We backed Iraq in the I-I War because Iran, even back then, was a nation of radical, anti-U.S. zealots who, if they had won the I-I War, would have threatened the Gulf, the small Gulf emirates and oilfields beyond--as well as general stability in the region.

As for your "Show me an American with Sandinista sympathies and I'll show you a rat bastard Commie, every time", I think I said it first--April 3, 1982.

"I don't recall Khomeini's Iran being allied with the Soviets. We backed Iraq in the I-I War because Iran, even back then, was a nation of radical, anti-U.S. zealots who, if they had won the I-I War, would have threatened the Gulf, the small Gulf emirates and oilfields beyond--as well as general stability in the region." (Fred)
"During the waning years of the Cold War we supported Hussein in an effort to contain a Soviet-backed Iran."

By Derek Bishop

http://www.counterpunch.org/bishop.html
"The shift against Hussein

At the same time that the end of the Iran-Iraq war eliminated the main reason for the US to support Hussein, the crisis of Stalinist rule in the USSR—which would ultimately lead to the liquidation of the Soviet Union by the Stalinist bureaucracy in December 1991 —w as depriving the Arab nationalist regimes of their main military and financial backer. This was in many ways the deciding factor in US relations with Iraq."

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/catnipdave/store/USpolicy_after_Iran-IraqWAR.htm

"As for your "Show me an American with Sandinista sympathies and I'll show you a rat bastard Commie, every time", I think I said it first--April 3, 1982." (Fred)
(Fred)


Damn!

Just goes to show you that people are the same wherever you go.

I'm happy to agree on this one.

And I do recall when I worked in D.C. in 1986-88, the US re-established relations with Iraq, and on my daily walks past the Iraqi Embassy on my way to work, I'd periodically see the Ambassador (now dead) and he'd always give me a friendly Baathist wave.

"...a friendly Baathist wave." (Fred)
(Fred)


Is a "friendly Baathist wave," the same as the Hitler salute?

That Party had some very interesting origins.

Saddam Hussein's and Yassir Arafat's mentor (a man named al Husseini) was an actual SS member and was instrumental in cutting off the Palestinian territories to Jewish migration from Europe. He is said to have made a pact with Hitler that when they finished in Europe, they'd help the Arabs do the same thing in the Mideast.

Until the Shah was deposed we had excellent relations with Iran, then after the Ayotollah came to power, we forged an alliance with Saddam's Iraq.

After the I-I war, he was no longer of much use to us, but it wasn't until George Bush Sr's tenure that our relations with Iraq really soured.

Kuwait had been slant drilling across the border of Iraq, in effect stealing Iraqi oil. Hussein reportedly approached the Bush 41 administration asking for some assistance and was reportedly told, "We don't get involved in such petty border disputes," which Saddam Hussein took as a green light to remedy the problem his own way.

A reasonable presumption, in my view.

At any rate, once Iraq crossed the border, we apparently feigned shock and outrage over "the rape of Kuwait," and proceeded to smash Iraq.

That is reportedly how Saddam Hussein went from being a pro-American tyrant to an anti-American one.

At any rate, that's all "water under the bridge" now.