Comments for How will the Iraq war end? »
Posted By STONERS 1 year, 8 months ago in NewsOn the fifth anniversary of the Iraq war, progress is slow but violence is down. A three-part series on the war's effects starts today with a look at what the endgame might look like.
Read Full Story at news.yahoo.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 144 of 146 Comments
-
Neutral
STONERS1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"From the point of view of the US, the Iraq war might be over when a president simply declares an endpoint. To an Iraqi, it might take much longer than that. Iraq today might be only at the midpoint, even the beginning, of a cycle of epic geopolitical change, say some analysts in a Monitor survey of experts in the region as well as in the US. For evidence, look at the Balkans, they say, which is still experiencing the geopolitical aftershocks of its mid-1990s wars."
"It will take the whole term of the next president to get this right."
Reply -
Neutral
bubba21 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The biggest problem here is calling 'it' a "war".
What is going on in Iraq is a CIVIL WAR. The US military is getting hammered because we are there as OCCUPIERS - we won't leave so they are trying to push us out.
The REAL war is between the Sunni and the Shia. When Saddam's regime was toppled, the control over the sectarian factions was destroyed. They have been fighting each other ever since.
The Bush administration, via their unjustified invasion, has DESTROYED Iraq. Their infrastructure is shattered.
There is very little clean water, sanitation, food, medical supplies, medical care, or education opportunities.
The mortality rate for children under 5 is the highest ever in the modern history of Iraq.
Women's rights are down the toilet - women live in fear, can't work, and many have been kidnapped and tortured and murdered for not following 'strict' Islam 'rules'.
Reply-
-
Neutral
RichFatCat1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Bubba is exactly right! Everything he has stated is observable fact. That's the beauty of it all. My God, why would anyone want it to end? Why kill the goose that has laid billions and billions in pure golden eggs! (Some say over 3 trillion when you factor in future medical care for vets) Yes, the death and maiming is horrible, but war is like that. The bottom line is the profits that are gained. It's why all wars are fought, face it.
It's an ugly way to make money, but the American people voted for George Bush TWICE. Not once, but twice. The second time with Iraq in full swing! It's called "majority rules" and the minority needs to accept that simple fact. C'mon, your taxes have been cut to the bone, just like he said, and you're getting even MORE money back. It's what you voted for, money in your pocket, get honest and face it. You crybabies voted for it, you got it, now make money on it while it lasts....a long, long, time.
Reply-
raats6662Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Unemployment is 50% or more. Children are working instead of going to school because their parents (if still alive) have no jobs and their families are living in POVERTY.
Most of the internal and external refugees have NOT returned home unless they are forced out (from the current country they are in) or are broke and can't live where they have been any more.
America needs to GET OUT of Iraq. The Iraqis WANT us out, because we have screwed up their country.
Whatever they do after we leave is their business and their problem. We should never have invaded in the first place.
The next President should be "saddled" with NOTHING regarding Iraq, because the next President should get all of our troops OUT of there as soon as possible.
Reply-
Neutral
djrevelky1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Bubba2,
Everything you say is correct. The situation in Iraq is worse than it was under Saddam.
However, your lack of reasoning...for such a thought out response is troubling. If all of these problems are happening with the US military THERE then what will happen to the people of Iraq when we leave?
The anti-crowd constantly talks about the plight of the Iraqi people; they say that the US military invasion had no foresight or regard for the wellfare of the Iraqi people. That might be true. But those who argue for a withdrawal are doing the exact same thing they accuse Bush of doing. Bush started a hasty invasion without regard for the consequences and the anti-war group wants to make a hasty withdrawal without regard for the consequences.
Reply-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
IF the current administration could actually DO something about the mess they made, and they SHOWED it, I might not be so adamant about totally pulling out.
But, as you agreed, the situation gets WORSE every day, NOT better.
The Iraqis WANT us OUT. The latest published poll indicates over 70% of Iraqis want the U.S. to leave.
The Iraqis need to take care of their own country.
You say that pulling out now is the same as the hasty invasion?
You DO see what goes on while we continue to stay?
There is NO evidence that the violence and/or the situation in that country would get worse if we left. The administration says that, but seeing as they have lied about everything regarding Iraq, why would you believe them on that point?
Since most Iraqis want us OUT, the odds are that the situation will actually get better because the occupiers will be GONE.
Reply-
Neutral
djrevelky1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The evidence that suggest that the violence in that country would get worse if we leave is called common sense.
As you said yourself, it is a civil war. We all know that the US military propping up the government. When you remove the prop, a government falls. When the government falls, the civil war gets worse.
What would have happened in the Balkans with the declaration of the independence of Kosovo if UN troops had not been there?
The war for control in the middle east between Shia and Sunni Islam has been going on for over 1,000 years...removing the US presence will not end that war automatically.
Reply-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That's right ... the war between those factions has been going on and on, and WE will NOT stop it.
Being IN Iraq is not stopping that conflict - in fact, we exacerbated it!!
If you believe in what the Bible says, those people will fight each other until the end of time. WHY should we stay in the MIDDLE of it? WHAT good is that DOING? None!
Comparing the Balkan / U.N situation is NOT the same thing.
The U.S. MADE the mess in Iraq, but we continue to make the mess WORSE by STAYING.
Reply-
Neutral
joeblowe1 year, 8 months ago
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
wtagg1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why are we allowing those that made all the mistakes to continue to make mistakes? If it is worse than it was under Saddam, what evidence do you have that it will get better, especially under the direction of those that created the problem. In project management, you do not continue a project for 5 years and $500,000,000,000 that has returned nothing back except a badly damaged economy, 4000 dead heroes, tens of thousands of causulties, tens of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians, and no oil to boot.
We should have taken the $500,000,000,000 and put it toward research and development of energy sources to replace oil. We are funding those that fight us. That is stupid (or incredibly brilliant strategy from the oil industry, depending on the point of view).
We do not seem to learn from our choices in the past.
Reply -
Neutral
fourthtunz1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
djrev,
The lack of reasoning you mention also extends to the premise that our country should be nation building instead of leaving jobs like that to the un.
The loud voices that say that we should stay due the repercussions on iraq, well what about the repercussion of staying, to our own country?
There is a middle ground, let the UN and Iraq forces take over, we are in deep financial trouble in the US.
10-20% of our population are benefiting from this war, unfortunately they are the loudest and wealthiest.
Reply-
Neutral
djrevelky1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't think we should be nation building...but I also believe that when you break something you try to fix it.
We broke Iraq, I think it is our duty to try to fix it.
Yes, the world hates us for the war, yes the Iraqi people hate us for it...and they will hate us all the more so if we leave and allow chaos to take control.
Reply-
Neutral
Jaydee401 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Your position that if you broke it you should fix it is admirable but you must realize you have neither the tools or the skill to do so, it's like using a chainsaw for minor surgery. Before you fix a country halfway around the world should you not fix your own?
Reply -
Neutral
dissent1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
the biggest part of fixing it is to just get out of the way. as bubba said, we make it worse. but this supposed stance of "responsibility" is a dishonest and ingenuine argument anyway used as an excuse to stay because that's what this administration, both parties, the military and the corporations really want. everybody on this planet knows that our plan is to keep it. our thinking as a nation is that sure we broke it. that means we bought it and if we bought it that means we own it, so if we own it it's gonna be ours any which way. what's really stupid about this thinking is that it's like we burnt the house to claim the insurance only to find we were under insured or not insured at all. it's like sitting and hemorrhaging at the wheel after the car crash trying to look at the bright side
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"If all of these problems are happening with the US military THERE then what will happen to the people of Iraq when we leave?"
--I think it partly depends on which definition of "leave" you're using, djrevelky. The pro-crowd is tediously fond of projecting black and white exit scenarios in which, for example, US troops wave a white flag, hand over their weapons to the people of Iraq and depart the country overnight in a huff. Those on the right love to cast Democrats in the role of Dr. Suess' as if they will be like the Grinch stripping Whoville of every last vestige of Christmas. Who, other than cons, has even ONCE suggested such a ridiculously irresponsible approach to winding down the war in Iraq?
Reply-
Neutral
dissent1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
there's nothing in the history books that makes withdrawal look encouraging unless it happens in peace time like say, when the english left hong kong in 1997. every other time when an occupier doesn't really want to leave and is trying to make it look like they're the good guys it's been a mess. the worst case scenario is when there's a war. this is the worst case scenario and probably the worst of those at that. and as long as we are there there will always be war. so there is no clean way out, do it fast, do it slow, it's going to be ugly and it's going to be a disgrace. but it has to be done. that's what i call responsibility. doing what's best for everyone, not just what makes us look good. you can't fix the problem when you are the problem.
Reply-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You make a lot of great points. I agree this whole thing is one big hideous train wreck. My fantasy picture of withdrawal would have us redeploying after we reconciled with all of the allies we p!ssed off over the last 6 years figuring out a way to share duties and responsibilities in Afghanistan and/or Iraq. Unfortunately, I don't think the PIC realize that rhetoric like "cut and run" and "surrender" doesn't exactly endear us to those from whom we want help.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive1 Reply
-
Neutral
nikkibabe1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It is very simple.
Bush: It was worth to invade and occupy Iraq in spite of almost 4000 US servicemen death, thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women & children dead, millions displaced or made refugees, unimaginable humanitarian crisis & $half trillion in cost and rising.
McCain: I agree with you boss and I will continue it, if elected.
Obama: I will end it, bring our troops home and use the money saved to fix the country's crumbling infrastructure, if elected. Will negotiate with Iran, Syria, Jordan & Saudi Arabia to help Iraq after we leave.
Clinton: I regret voting for this invasion but now I realize it was a mistake. I will bring troops home and end the war, if elected.
What will happen to Iraq after we leave? There was nothing happening before we invaded & occupied. Iraqis will take care of their country. After all, it is a sovereign country with an elected government and constitution.
Clearly, Americans have a choice in Nov. 2008.
Reply -
Neutral
houd1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
the war will end only when Mr. Bush & Ms. Rice leave the White House, and only if America elected NON-fuel dealer.
But even when US army leave Iraq, the country is already 100 years behind the rest of the world. What America can do for Iraqis after leaving 5,000,000 orphans?!?! this is the question!!
Reply-
Neutral
djrevelky1 year, 8 months ago
-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive6 Replies
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Good point--You should never give a positive to someone unless you share the poster's political ideology, and you agree with the poster's every word, idea, and concept, the post is free of typos and grammatical errors, and the poster has a way cool avatar. ;-)
Reply -
Neutral
houd1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Check this links to know the source of my information:
http://www.iraqupdates.com/p_articles.php/artic...
I can't imagine somebody still beleiving Bush and his gang after 700 lies in less than 8 years.
Please read with care the stories of these boys who were forced to quit the school to feed their younger brothers, maybe you will feel sorry for them. And don't forget to thank your God you were born in US not in Iraq.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
Charlson1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The Bush administration's vision of 2003 -- that an Iraq freed of Saddam Hussein would be a peaceful hive of democracy, the Germany of the Middle East, and a source of strategic strength for the US -- long ago proved wildly optimistic. It's been replaced by the knowledge that Iraq is a frail state, a source of strategic weakness, and a likely drain on US resources for some time to come."
"Of the misjudgments made by the US prior to its initiation of hostilities, however, one of the most profound was its error in predicting how Iraqi society would react once freed of Hussein's grip. Pushed by extremists, it split into ethnic and sectarian groupings. It turned out that few Iraqis -- or, at least, not enough of them -- had been waiting for the day they could found a Jeffersonian democracy."
Reply-
Neutral
Charlson1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Taking all these factors into account, success in Iraq at this point might be defined as a unified country that does not offer sanctuary to Islamic militants and is governed by a stable regime that is not under the influence of a hostile foreign power, such as Iran."
Reply -
-
-
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: Retracted by user
-
rdy2rckComment removed: Hard Banned18 Replies
-
Neutral
nikkibabe1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Quote:
""Taking all these factors into account, success in Iraq at this point might be defined as a unified country that does not offer sanctuary to Islamic militants and is governed by a stable regime that is not under the influence of a hostile foreign power, such as Iran."
If you call Iran a "hostile foreign power" what do you call your own country which invaded and occupied a muslim country that has border with Iran?
This is what Hitler did in 1940's by invading and occupying France, and started the WWII.
Do you see any difference. I guess not if the writer is a neo conservative Republican war monger.
Reply -
Neutral
simonsez1 year, 8 months ago
-
Neutral
djrevelky1 year, 8 months ago
-
Neutral
ETproductions1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There was certainly little about Saddam that was defensible, but truth be told, the attack on the Kurds wasn't just a random strike. It was done to put down an open rebellion which we ignited after Gulf War 1 by sending signals to the Kurds that we would back them against Baghdad.
Reply-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive2 Replies
-
-
-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Both of your comments are inane.
Saddam was a BAD guy and so were his sons. He was responsible for the deaths of many Iraqis without justification.
So, tell me - when ARE we going to invade Iran, the Sudan, North Korea, Venezuela, and ALL the other countries where there are "BAD" people in charge?? WHEN are we going to "rescue" the citizens of those countries from "evil" and replace it with "our" democracy?
If the U.S. is in the business of "overthrowing 'BAD' governments" then we had better get REALLY BUSY and do the same for all of those other countries. Right?
NOT ... that is the logic of your statements, and it is erroneous.
Reply-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive1 Reply
-
-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive1 Reply
-
-
Neutral
wtagg1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Are you not pointing out another of our diplomatic mistakes? Saddam was the dictator of Iraq with our blessing. Are there instances where we have stuck our nose in where it really doesn't belong and it worked out for us?
Why do we continue to not learn from the past?
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
buckheadd1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes so very true! It'll be another 100 years!
And Mcain is also looking at Iran:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAzBxFaio1I&feat...
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
djrevelky1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think that is one thing we can all agree on.
It seems like he can't keep his mind on 2 seperate things at once.
The economy was improving after 9/11 and then the Iraq war goes haywire. As Iraq has slowly improved the economy has slowly fallen apart.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
ETproductions1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If you go back to 1998 and read through the Program for the New American Century's letter to Clinton that called for an invasion of Iraq, it is clear that the Bush/Cheney Administration NEVER had any intention of leaving Iraq. All the justifications about disarming a dangerous dictator, avenging 911 and stopping terrorism were lies. The Iraq invasion was a straight-out takeover of a foreign land in order to gain a permanent base where we could control the Persian Gulf and keep cheap oil flowing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_Ne...
Oil was trading at $23 a barrel before we invaded Iraq and it's now around $110, so the strategy was not only morally repugnant, it was a monumental failure. A failure that McCain plans to continue and accelerate if he wins in November.
Reply-
-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The U.S. contractors - the ones that are stealing us blind by gobbling up billions of our tax dollars with SHODDY work - are building bases in Iraq RIGHT NOW.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040...
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/ira...
And, don't forget the 1/2 BILLION dollar embassy that still isn't functional and is the size of New Jersey.
But I guess that isn't evidence - not to YOU - that Bush and his cronies are building a permanent presence in Iraq ...
Reply-
-
Neutral
HannibalBarca1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
One of the PNAC group documents clearly shows that Bush and his most senior cabinet members had already planned an attack on Iraq before he took power in January 2001. In their plan entitled "Rebuilding American's Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century," reveals that the current members of Bush's cabinet had already planned, before the 2000 presidential election, to take military control of the Gulf region whether Saddam Hussein is in power or not. "Even should Saddam pass from the scene," the plan says U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain, despite domestic opposition in the Gulf states to the permanent stationing of U.S. troops. Iran, it says, "may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests as Iraq has.
Reply-
Neutral
HannibalBarca1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
" The 90-page PNAC document from September 2000 says: "The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein. The plan calls for Permanent Military Bases in Iraq to dominate the Middle East including neighboring Iran.....
Mind you this is 2000, not 1998 but if I looked harder I could find one
Reply-
Neutral
djrevelky1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ok, source?
And I'm not disputing the plan was there...I'm saying that PNAC DID NOT send President Clinton a letter in 1998 saying that we should establish a perminent military base.
I have stated that several times this letter does not exist, I have been negatived for it by several people...but yet, STILL...
NO ONE can show me this letter from 1998 sent to Clinton by PNAC saying that we should establish a perminent military base in Iraq.
Reply-
Neutral
HannibalBarca1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
1998: PNAC Letter to Clinton:
Remove Saddam ... vital interests in the Gulf
Jan. 26, 1998. Open Letter to Clinton: Remove Saddam
PNAC's first public action was an open letter to Clinton stating:
Turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. ... including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf." â;; January, 1998.
Signed by the following members of the Bush Administration:
Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Bolton, Abrams, Armitage, and Woolsey.
PDF of the letter (31k). It can also be found on the PNAC web site.....
All I did was type in search "PNAC letter to Clinton" and had lots to choose from...you should try it
Reply-
raats6662Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
sotiris-k1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually i dont think the strategy failed, just that the strategy was another one. It was to rally oil prices where they are now for a decade and secure $50 bil per year for big oil companies and bankrupt the US economy while they made money like there was no tomorrow. Simplistic as this sounds ,it fits perfectly. Look who gained the most from all this. It is not the US military, or the US citizens, or the Iraqi people (yet) . It is the terrorists (they got a phd and post doc program in Iraq free of charge)the big corporations that secured a trillion of accumulated after a couple decades profits and the opportunity they now have to invest and buy out over time the entire high tech sector and future energy production that was placed at secondary role this decade. They now stand to invest in whatever will prove the next move. I mean think about what you can do with hundreds of billions in cash that the war awarded to them worldwide. Indeed new world order from countries to companies.
Reply-
Neutral
sotiris-k1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If a company makes 50 bil profits per yr for a decade itcan grow bigger than any high tech company like intel, microsoft, GE, CSCO ,Google etc very soon. It has now the power to corner the energy market when new technologies (that they dictate their direction) emerge and secure even more profits in post oil era ultimately controlling everything. It is the perfect tyranny buildup. The ultimate treason too where the superpower is betrayed and dethroned in order to financially secure certain sectors with amazing future power to control directions society takes. I hate conspiracy theories as typically low probability speculations that are unrealistic but study this result of the war and it becomes extremely strange how perfectly it is working out for an eventual takeover transition. The US technology sector was the future. They managed not only to stop that but bring back the future to the old corporations and hand them the ultimate decision making power for the directions we take.
Reply-
Neutral
sotiris-k1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am simply going to ask you this . If we as a society through our choices were to award someone $50 bil of profits per year what kind of company would make the most from it and have the biggest utility growth impact for the society ? What does this money mean to computer chip companies, software companies, biotech companies, etc you name it . Symmetrical distribution of wealth leads to symmetrical growth and broad progress. Instead we now have starving most of the sectors mentioned above with impact in the overall job market ,stock market and economy while the key players in energy are getting excellent position build up advantage . Of course we as a society stand to gain nothing from the billions oil companies make because their game is self serving one. After all they do not produce symmetrical tangible progress, they do not introduce to the world new science or technology with broad implications unless it facilitates their purposes (in those applications they do ).
Reply-
Neutral
sotiris-k1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The decision to exploit 9/11 and move towards a period of global instability and disorientation from other issues has vastly impacted progress. People see during this election year the economy and the Iraq war as competing issues for attention. They in fact fail to notice they are the same single issue. The war is the economy! The kind of war that the US is engaged at is dictating the trajectory the economy is taking. The profits are focused towards the energy players and the other companies are playing in a saturated market field with profits that are reduced and do not any longer grow and which exist only due to re-organizations, elimination of jobs and other infrastructure expansion projects. The emphasis on the war removes opportunities for investments in other sectors that otherwise would dynamically impact the economy and grow it. Instead all prosperity is victimized and the collapse of the middle class is financing the build up of China, India and big oil corporations .
Reply-
Neutral
sotiris-k1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
For Chevron Exxon etc to accumulate currently the profits they do everything else has to become more expensive and difficult. The currency is collapsing too. I am not anti oil. those companies are needed. They produce what we need. They function for a reason. But we have exceeded that reason and we have awarded them tremendous advantages at the victimization of the rest of society. Jobs are lost, materials become more expensive, as a result the other tech companies have reduced earnings and offer less job opportunities. Several sectors of technology are experiencing frustration. Remember the 90s? What do you think was the key reason for prosperity? The expansion of high technology was. Since 2000 that has taken a secondary seat. Remember the slogan; nasdaq the stock market for the next 100 years. What happened to that? The war ate it. War or economy then? What topic matters? The war is the economy! Our choice to make terrorism the key issue of our times was our financial gravestone .
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
smartsweetheart1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Iraq war was not over, when President Bush declared America´s victory. We all know that now. I am not sure, if the comparison with the situation in Germany after World War II is really fitting, but I am sure, that enlarging the number of soldiers cannot (and will not!) solve the many problems of the Iraqi people. My wish for this country is a rapid rebuilding of infrastructure, education and health-care and the formation of an indigene and autarc government. In this point, the American after-Iraq-war-strategy could learn from history:
Only who is able to stand on his own feet can get a strong partner afterwards!
Reply -
Neutral
joeblowe1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This article seems to contain a lot of opinions about what might happen if we DO - or FAIL to do - this or that, but the thing it does NOT have is any explanation of exactly WHY any of it is any of our damned business! Iraq is NOT a part of the U.S. It is NOT our territory. It is NOT our toy. Neither are Israel, Turkey, Korea, Germany, etc., etc. The question very few people are willing to ask is: WHY are our troops in ANY of these places. Of course, Ron Paul has asked that question -- but he has been labeled a "kook" for doing it. The as*wipes that we somehow have put in charge of running this country are running our reputation, our economy, and our military forces right straight into ruin. And the idiot population wants desperately to elect another same ol' same ol' - but with a different slogan. It's VERY disheartening.
Reply -
Neutral
vor1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
A new strongman will eventually emerge and consolidate power. Then we will have real problems if we continue to elect neocons. We claim to have all of these noble ideas for the future of Iraq but we don't understand the culture of these people any better than we did at the start. It is their country, not ours. And as George Will so accurately noted, "there are no Thomas Jefferson's left, Saddam killed them all". Not to mention that many of the wealthy, professional Iraqi's fled the country after the invasion.
A mess. A mess caused by neocon intervention that was poorly planned and poorly executed. The military part was easy, it was when real thought was required that we failed miserably, and continue to fail. We approach a religious division as if it is political in nature and resolvable. Again because we do not understand their society and never truly will.
Reply -
Neutral
saintetienne1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"we do not understand their society and never truly will."
So we're supposed to just ignore an entire people? Pull out, look away and pretend they don't exist? Shut down all of our business, strategic and humanitarian interests and let them descend into chaos? Great solutions.... Typical of the Retreat and Surrender Caucus. Did Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid scare you into thinking the big, bad ol' Middle East is too much for the U.S. to handle?
Yes, the Middle East is a mess, some of it caused by the U.S., but most of it caused by its own internal problems. The U.S. has largely ignored it for decades, but it's come knocking on our door, and Bush has been the first to take a risk and actually try to do something about it. You may say it's none of our business, but safety, human rights and economic opportunities are EVERYBODY'S business, unless you live in a cave, which I believe bin Laden does.
Reply-
Neutral
joeblowe1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You seem to be taking the position that everyone in the middle east is an idiot and they can't POSSIBLY manage their own affairs without our help. You overlook the fact that the U.S. has only been around a couple hundred years, but they have been managing -- somehow -- without us for many centuries. It is NOT up to us to "take care of" the middle east - ANY of it. What business we do have there is just that: BUSINESS. We should be TRADING with them, not trying to run the region as though it were our toy. All those Muslims might be insane, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are stupid or incompetent to manage their own affairs.
Reply-
Neutral
saintetienne1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"You seem to be taking the position that everyone in the middle east is an idiot and they can't POSSIBLY manage their own affairs without our help."
Yep.
"You overlook the fact that the U.S. has only been around a couple hundred years, but they have been managing -- somehow -- without us for many centuries."
If by "managing without us for many centuries" you mean oppressing women, herding camels and picking dates, then yes, they've managed fine.
"It is NOT up to us to "take care of" the middle east - ANY of it."
Yes it is. When a region such as the Middle East is in the strategic position that it is in, holds most of the world's oil supply, and is chock-a-block full of dictators, religious zealots and dangerous people who are armed to the teeth, it's EVERYONE'S business to try to quell the violence and manage the region.
Reply-
Neutral
saintetienne1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
CONT.
"We should be TRADING with them"
Agreed. How do you think that's going to be accomplished?
"All those Muslims might be insane, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are stupid or incompetent to manage their own affairs."
Yes it does. They are newly-rich, and ill-equipped to handle the sudden money and power they find themselves with. Instead of investing it into their countries' people, infrastructure, technology or medical advancements like any SANE country would do, they've bought bombs, weapons, guns, established terrorist training camps or otherwise hoarded it in palaces - anything but something constructive. I'd say the Middle East is a powder keg waiting to explode, and the repercussions will be global. At least the Bush Administration recognized that and has attempted to put a stop to it before it does.
Reply-
Neutral
walden31 year, 8 months ago
-
-
raats6662Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
saintetienne1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"By the StinkyTaint doctrine then we should also invade Burma, Tibet, Kenya and Dhafur."
No, that's the doctrine of loopy liberal celebrities like George Clooney, Richard Gere, Susan Sarandon and Angelina Jolie.
"It should not be the goal of the US to unilaterally police every hot spot on the planet, or to overthrow every two bit dictator."
Agreed. But since all anyone else can do is stand on the sidelines and jeer at us, instead of helping in any way, shape or form, we end up going it alone.
(Sigh) It's not easy being number one. But then that's a problem that you're unfamiliar with, waldripdick.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
vor1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Where in the h-ll do you come up with the premise for your attack? Where do you get all of this reasoning which I do not hold. Do you really believe this administration or any of its lackeys are capable of resolving an ancient religious issue? We removed Saddam, that was our objective. We hoped to leave a stable Iraq behind. That was foolish because Iraq is a British creation and by its very three-sided nature is doomed to instability. It's like a triangular wheel. We aren't looking at real solutions. Al-Maliki certainly isn't. You did nothing but bitch in your post. Offered absolutely nothing of wisdom.
We borrow the dollars to pay for this war from Beijing and you cite human rights as an important American value? We also still deal with Putin as a basic ally. There are no set rules. That is the fallacy of neocon idealogy. The world isn't just black and white, there are alot of grey areas. That's why simplistic thinking does not work.
Reply -
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"So we're supposed to just ignore an entire people?"
--Why are we bringing in such a paltry number of Iraqi refugees (relative to the number other countries are welcoming) if we care so much about them, sainte? Let me count the ways that our behavior is TOTALLY inconsistent with our rhetoric...Do you people EVER stop to consider that you're being duped? Wow...
Reply
-
-
Neutral
nikkibabe1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here is the today's headlines from Huffington Post. A crisis few people who support the invasion & occupation do not understand:
"3,990 US Troops Killedâ;¦ 29,395 Woundedâ;¦ 2,100 Have Tried To Commit Suicideâ;¦ 88% Of Military Officers Say War Has Stretched US Thinâ;¦ 82,000-89,000 Iraqi Casualtiesâ;¦ 4,500,000 Iraqi Refugeesâ;¦ Global Terror Incidents From January 2001: 1,188â;¦ Global Terror Incidents From January 2006: 5,188, cost of taxpayer money so far $600 Billion"
Enough said about a man who still says it is worth it and wants his a Republican continue!
What a country!
Reply -
Neutral
sotiris-k1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In about 5 more years! Could be earlier but likely a stable peaceful society will emerge in that time frame. It is how civil wars, insurgencies etc end anyway. In the end Iraq will be better than it was before Saddam but the country that invaded it will be far worse rendering the war a long term mistake exactly as those that described it before 2003. All who have benefited from this are; short term international terrorism, oil companies (Bush's & Cheney's friends) , Russia (oil exports), middle east countries with oppressive regimes in the golf area, defense industry, China and India having a free run in everything while the US was immersed in bs priorities that destroyed it financially and undermined it technologically .
Reply-
Neutral
sotiris-k1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thats what human society does after wars in the areas that the wars were taking place. It improves. Millions die and the rest get better eventually. And all you have to ask yourself is this simple thing; In what way is the US better from it all? In what way is the average kid more educated , protected, prepared for a prosperous career for a better world ? In what way is the planet's environment impacted from all the toxic substances released during a modern long term war with daily explosions and burning and other disasters? In what way is the self esteem or economy of the average american improved? In what way is the image of the US over the planet altered?
Yet the most important of all questions and in the end one that embraces all the above is this;
What else was taking place while we were sleeping that we missed and resulted in us giving up our own future because we were unable to focus on what mattered and chose instead to self destruct? Did we destroy ourselves from within?
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
OldHickory1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If the Dumbocrats have their way it will end with the sucking sound caused by the vacuum of the troops leaving and Al Queada and the Taliban moving in to fill the void. It's reassuring to know that these 'patriots' weren't around during WWII and Korea. Unfortunately, if they get their way and they turn out to be wrong, there is no going back. But then, if they're mistaken they can always blame it on someone else.
Semper fi.
Reply-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There is VERY LITTLE Al Qaeda or Taliban IN Iraq. Only 5 to 10 percent of the insurgency is Al Qaeda and/or Taliban - the rest are LOCALS!
Comparing WWII and Korea to this "war" is erroneous.
It was pretty obvious who the enemy was during WWII, in spite of the fact that our government 'detain' hundreds of thousands of Japanese in this country, mainly out of FEAR (sound familiar).
There was NO enemy in Iraq! There were NO Al Qaeda in Iraq until AFTER we invaded and started making a bit MESS of that country.
There is NO one else to blame for the administration's screw ups in Iraq. It IS all the fault of the Bush administration for lying us into a totally unjustified "war".
Reply-
Neutral
buckheadd1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Bubba Don't mind OldHickory, hes so old that he continually bickers. He likes the fact that our economy is in recession and is now number 2, he likes the fact that many of our soldiers have died. He likes the fact that Iraq and its beuty(when it had some) is now gone. Bubba, Old hickory is one dumb fellow!
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
simonsez1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It will downsize to the point we have a base or two there to neutralize Iran, but out of the way of the Iraqi Government.
They will find their way to make concessions to each tribe which will allow them to function successfully and re-build their country, perhaps resembling Kuwait or UAE.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
rdy2rckComment removed: Hard Banned
-
Neutral
nikkibabe1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You cannot separate the Iraqi Shiite majority and Iran. The blood relationship between Shiites goes back to centuries.
If Nuri Al Maliki was to chose between an American and Iranian, he will chose the Iranian any day.
Just cut and run, you have done enough damage without any knowledge of the Shiite and Sunni religions.
Reply -
Neutral
Tcaros1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This country is headed for an adjustment at election time.
The war, the economy, the violating of civil rights, condoning of torture, destruction of evidence, exposure of republican agenda, crooked department of justice that refuses to investigate the violation of our laws, all those signing statements, and the looming investigations and exposure of every illegal act committed by this administration will bring a reckoning.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
truthiness1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
whenever we leave (tomorrow or in a hundred years) there will be a bloody civil war. there is no preventing it. it is a waste of our most precious resource to stay.
meanwhile, the admin. is building a base larger than the Vatican, so you know what their plans are... you don't build a house if you are planning on moving away.
Reply -
Neutral
Ratskii1 year, 8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I went to a demonstration against the war earlier today. I came across a group of young men holding up a banner that said IVAW (Iraq Veterans Against the War). I went up to them and said, "Thank you." I didn't qualify my thanks in any way. They were all young and stood ramrod straight. They smiled back at me and a couple of them extended their hands and replied, "Thanks for saying that."
As with the Vietnam war, it is these young men and women who will convince the public. I just hope that they are in time to prevent a McCain victory in November.
Reply -
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.