-
What Those Who Boycott Israel Really Want
May 14, 2013 | 143 comments
-
Mitt on Marriage
May 8, 2013 | 38 comments
-
The One Constant
May 1, 2013 | 118 comments
-
Trudeaus and Terrorism
April 22, 2013 | 15 comments
-
I Was Almost There
April 16, 2013 | 171 comments
A Further Perspective
Should Saddam Have Stayed in Power?
If we had it to do over, what would the answer be?
I have given a great deal of thought to the War in Iraq since President Obama announced that all American troops would be withdrawn at the end of this year after he failed to obtain an extension to the 2008 Status of Forces Agreement signed by former President George W. Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. I found myself asking a question I thought I would never pose.
Should Saddam Hussein have stayed in power?
The reason I never thought I would ever have entertained such a question is quite simple. Saddam Hussein was one of the greatest mass murderers of the 20th century who fancied himself an Arabian Joseph Stalin. Writing in the New York Times in January 2003, less than two months before the start of the War in Iraq, John F. Burns noted:
Mr. Hussein even uses Stalinist maxims, including what an Iraqi defector identified as one of the dictator’s favorites: “If there is a person, then there is a problem. If there is no person, then there is no problem.”
Burns estimated that nearly a million Iraqis had died under Saddam’s rule. Others put the figure closer to two million. Whatever the number, life in Saddam’s Iraq was, as Hobbes so famously put it, “nasty, brutish and short.” It should never be forgotten that Saddam launched chemical weapon attacks against men, women, and children in the Kurdish town of Halabja in northern Iraq in March 1988 killing an estimated 5,000 people. Lest we also forget Saddam’s campaign against Kurds, Shiites, and Marsh Arabs in retaliation for their uprising following the 1991 Gulf War. It is estimated that 30,000 to 60,000 civilians were killed by Saddam’s forces. To add insult to injury, Saddam also embarked on a campaign to drain the wetlands the Marsh Arabs relied on for their livelihood. As recently as this past spring, mass graves from the Saddam era were being uncovered. A benevolent dictator he was not.
If not for U.S. and Coalition forces, Saddam Hussein would be alive, well and living in the palace of his choice with his reign of terror proceeding apace. Yet as American forces prepare to leave in just over two month’s time, Iraq is not a friend, much less an ally of the United States. The Iraqi government regards the United States with little gratitude and much contempt.
Those who opposed the War in Iraq from the outset would make the case that the source of this contempt is the considerable number Iraqi civilian casualties. The anti-Iraq War website Iraq Body Count estimates between 103,000 and 113,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the start of the War in Iraq. Yet by all appearances a majority of Iraqi civilians killed were deliberately killed by forces hostile to U.S. and Coalition troops. Not that such details matter to the Iraqis.
Now there is an argument to be made that a Commander-in-Chief more nimble than Barack Obama could have persuaded Iraq to extend the 2008 Status of Forces Agreement. But any such extension would have been at best short term and fragile and likely only served to delay the inevitable.
As evil as Saddam Hussein was, our removal of him not only strengthened Iran but with its nuclear ambitions might very well unleash an evil even Saddam could not put into action. Even as our troops helped bring about Shiite majority rule, the Shiites proved far more loyal to Iran. Perhaps former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was right when in April 2006 he said, “Most of the Shiites are loyal to Iran, and not the countries they are living in.” It is difficult to look upon post-Saddam Iraq as an independent, sovereign democratic country when it is doing Iran’s bidding as was the case when it sent $10 billion in aid to Syria this past August to assist Bashar Assad in killing off Syrian dissidents and protesters. As Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch asked back in July 2009, “Was this what we have been fighting for in Iraq all these years? An Iranian Shiite client state in Baghdad?”
It is also difficult to look upon post-Saddam Iraq as a democratic country when you consider the treatment of Iraq’s Christians. This isn’t to say that life for Iraq’s Christians was peaches and cream under Saddam — far from it. Yet life is not appreciably better for Iraqi Christians since Saddam was deposed nearly nine years ago. An estimated 200,000 Christians have fled Iraq due to anti-Christian violence by Islamic extremists and account for half of its refugees.
Nevertheless, with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, we must wonder if George W. Bush would have proceeded with the use of force against Saddam Hussein if he knew then what we know now. However, such knowledge probably would not have made his choice any easier than that of Harry Truman when he was faced with the decision of whether or not to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Regardless of what decision President Bush made, innocent people were going to be killed. The only questions would be how many lives and how many of those would be American.
The only silver lining I see is the emergence of a new generation of leaders in Iraq who resent Iran’s influence and demand that Iraq be the master of its own house. Of course, a new generation of such leaders might take a at least a generation to make themselves known and if they were to make themselves known the Iraqi leadership beholden to Iran wouldn’t just roll over and play dead. There could be a power struggle which might very well result in a civil war. Yet that is the only hope I see for democracy to succeed in Iraq. But those are very long odds.
About the Author
Aaron Goldstein writes from Boston, Massachusetts.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (136) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Aaron Goldstein
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/10/25/should-saddam-have-stayed-in-p
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Innocent Bystander| 10.25.11 @ 7:06AM
The invasion of Iraq was one of the greatest blunders in world history. Iraq was an enemy of
Iran, had fought major wars against them. Christians in Iraq were protected as in no other Muslim country. The Prime Minister was a Christian. Iraq is now a satellite of Iran. The
leader of Iraq was given a hero's welcome. Iran
will now control the oil of Iraq. Over 100,000 Iraquis were killed as a result of the invasion, which was a violation of international law and was opposed by the UN . Thousands of American troops were killed, tens of thousands permanently disabled. Cost will be over $1 Trillion when you consider caring for our disabled troops. Iraq had nothing to do with 911.
Horrible war started by George W. Bush cost the Republicans the House, Senate, and White House and led to Obama, Pelosi, and Reid.
Jack in Wi.| 10.25.11 @ 7:50AM
Amen to that Innocent By Stander. Hussain was an old ally of ours. He was a modernizer and moderate Muslim. He let Christians have a lot of rights, they ran most of the liquor stores and bars. women could wear modern dress , drive cars, have jobs, and be well educated. He let everyone own a gun and most were armed to the teeth. Their were 250 gunstores open in Bagdad alone. He was the balance in the neighbor hood between the radical Sunnis of Saudi Arabia and the Shia of Iran.
Most of the people he so called killed were when he was our ally. It didn't seem to bother us any when he was fighting Iran. I think the number of Iraqi's killed under Hussain was far less then the number killed, then those who died under our embargos and wars. ' The Lancet of London, ' estimated that 650,000 Iraqis had died under our misrule in Iraq. That was over 5 years ago. To call Hussain on par with Stalin or Hitler is laughable.
The butcher of Bagdad Madelyn Albright thought the deaths of 1/2 million Iraqi children as a result of our embargo was worth it. 19 ot the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi nationals. Bin Laden had been a long term asset of the Saudi secret services. Yet which country do we invade but Iraq which had nothing to do ith 9/11. Hussain was an old man who had nothing left. He was being kept under control for peanuts. We have thrown away the lives of 5000 Americans, 50,000 wounded and trillions spent, all to put the Shia friends of Iran in charge of Iraq.
Patriotic conservatives all predicted that this policy would probably fail. Old man Bush and his advisors wanted nothing doing with making the rule of Iraq our problem. They thought that Iraq would turn into a quagmire. Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, John Duncan, Bob Novak General Norm Schwartzkoph, General Brent Skowcroft, James Baker and me were all against his folly. The Neocons and the Bush- Cheney oil lobby were disasterously wrong. Yet who do we have advising the Romney, Cain, Bachman, Perry, and Gingrich but the same Neocons that have sunk American foreign policy for over a decade.
chuck| 10.25.11 @ 8:38AM
"Most of the people he so called killed"
How can you "so call kill" a person?
Yes, he was an ally at one time, used to help control Iran. But at least we corrected that mistake, and the murderous bastard is now rotting in hell.
Too bad the Chinese don't do the same with their little murdering thug in North Korea.
Occam's Tool| 10.26.11 @ 2:07PM
My only concern is with timing. We should have destroyed IRAN first (no nation building) and then pronged Iraq. Minimal casualties, remove two scumbags.
chuck| 10.25.11 @ 8:41AM
"Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, John Duncan, Bob Novak General Norm Schwartzkoph, General Brent Skowcroft, James Baker and me were all against his folly"
Wow, all those,...and you too! Too bad you didn't convey YOUR opposition directly to Pres. Bush, as that probably would have stopped him, considering who it was coming from.
You certainly have an overinflated opinion of yourself.
Jack in Wi.| 10.25.11 @ 10:03AM
Chuck: I was all over the internet and talk radio oppossing this stupidity. Too bad idiots like you, and Boosh were for it.
Occam's Tool| 10.26.11 @ 2:07PM
Yup, Jack, you're famous. Just like me. Puh-lease.
Alan Brooks| 10.25.11 @ 10:10AM
"If we had it to do over, what would the answer be?"
Elect Gore in 2000, sparing us eight years of "I'm the Decider"
Shamus| 10.25.11 @ 10:50AM
I would have voted for Bill Bradley over Bush, but Gore is loony tunes. Look at all the rubbish Gore is peddling about "environmental" causes when he's pocketing millions from "green". The protesters had it right in 2000 when they chanted "Al Gore, Corporate Whore".
Alan Brooks| 10.25.11 @ 12:53PM
"The protesters had it right in 2000 when they chanted 'Al Gore, Corporate Whore' "
You were there protesting with them, eh?
James| 10.25.11 @ 4:36PM
"If we had it to do over, what would the answer be?"
----> Elect Gore in 2000, sparing us eight years of "I'm the Decider"
^^^^
This.
C Smith| 10.25.11 @ 11:44AM
G W Bush disrupted the natural order that God ordained. The Apostile Paul wrote the following during Nero's reign; the reign under which he was reportedly beheaded.
"For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil" (Romans 13:4).
"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God" (Romans 13:1).
"Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation" (Romans 13:2).
President H W Bush also disrupted the natural order that God ordained when he intervened and pressured Israel not to respond to unprovoked Scud missiles attack during his Desert Storm "passion play." Doubtful we would have a problem today if Israel had been allowed to take care of the matter.
sirbourbon| 10.25.11 @ 6:18PM
We (meaning, the State Department and the CFR connected policy makers that influence both State and the GOP and Dem Administrations) it can be historically and factually argued that we build up the enemies of America. Hussein was one such character that was the creation of the State Department and the CIA. Moammar Gadafi was another. But the qurstion is: "why do the policy makers and the government officials persist at this national suicidal policy?"
We have to create a monster like Hussein and provide him the guns and the bombs and planes before the war profiteers get involved in making the big money off of another stupid war.
The US government builds it own enemies is provable and even admitted so by this statement by Zibigneiw Brzezinski: In his book, Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era (New York: Viking Press;1970), Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote:
"For impressive evidence of Western participation in the early phase of Soviet economic growth, see Antony C. Sutton's Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development: 1917–1930, which argues that 'Soviet economic development for 1917–1930 was essentially dependent on Western technological aid' (p.283), and that 'at least 95 per cent of the industrial structure received this assistance.'" (p. 348).
While that clue from a former National Security Advisor to a former president corroborates the suicidal policy of every administration since FDR's, we still haven't answered the question as to why we do these idiotic, suicidal or insane things by building up people in power and then later we start wars to topple them from the positions of power we placed them in to begin with!
For that answer you must look into the CFR itself and examine their motives. This is a primer on the Council on Foreign Relations. http://www.thenewamerican.com/.....ction/1462
Ken (Old Texican)| 10.25.11 @ 7:29AM
Innocent, you are not.
Ignorant you most certainly are.
Ken (Old Texican)| 10.25.11 @ 7:33AM
Aaron,
Your article pretty much mirrors my own thoughts.
W like Truman was faced with a bad choice or a worse choice.
canuckistani| 10.25.11 @ 11:10AM
Saddam is gone. He was a useful idiot while he remained inside his gilded cage built by RR and Rummy. When he got uppity and started messing with Kuwait, he lacked the savviness to realize that America's true interests lie in mineral wealth and maintaining the status quo.
Whether we hoodwinked him or not, the move to depose him under false pretenses has ended any franchise to the high ground the US ever had.
When clear and present dangers emerge in coming years, any president will now have to go even further than the Eisenhower doctrine of 40-70 to convince congress and allies to go along.
Russia is getting smarter, China with its non-interference policy is running past our emissaries and the US, lacking true superpower strength outside of the blunt force object, is stuck in neutral.
This is the lasting legacy of the Junior vanity project.
Alan Brooks| 10.25.11 @ 4:49PM
"This is the lasting legacy of the Junior vanity project."
Obama's foreign policy is a distinct improvement over the last decade's; it can't be denied.
Al Adab| 10.25.11 @ 12:00PM
Let's not forget Ken, that those who opposed the 2003 Iraq War and oppose it today are the same who hollered loudest about Bush 41 NOT taking Baghdad in the Gulf War. They reflexivly oppose anything from the GOP to Conservative side for their own political advantage. Politics once stopped at the seashore. Would that it did so today.
Alan Brooks| 10.25.11 @ 4:51PM
"They reflexivly oppose anything from the GOP to Conservative side for their own political advantage."
That wasn't the case in the '80s. The GOP won 49 states in '84. Why do you suppose that was.
James| 10.25.11 @ 4:38PM
"W like Truman was faced with a bad choice or a worse choice."
But Truman settled for the bad choice, whereas Bush opted to go with the worst one imaginable.
Skippy| 10.25.11 @ 8:32PM
Nonsense.
When faced with a nest of vipers, kill the worst first.
I'm sure you're sure Saddam would have trembled at our Afghan invasion and become a good boy, and would still be good today.
Fantasy worlds are nice, aren't they?
Thank you, GWB.
hardcard| 10.25.11 @ 7:44AM
I like the idea of saddam shoveling coal with hitler and stalin.
Mike Hawk| 10.25.11 @ 8:04AM
Maybe we should have elected Algoe. Maybe I should have never married my ex. What if I had not enlisted in the Army?? What if??? Maybe if??? It happened and you cannot know what would have been different. Quit speculating on things that are long passed and cannot be changed. Saddam was a butish thug with two psychpath sones who terroized a country. What if we had discovered the plot and the aircraft had never hit the twin towers?? Idle speculation. (Except for consipiricy theorists.)
Mac Jehoff| 10.25.11 @ 8:16AM
Looks like your "r" is a little sticky. If it worked your spelling would have been better.
Mac Jehoff| 10.25.11 @ 8:19AM
Yo Mike, the lack of "r" does not detract from the Strong points you make.
Mike Hawk| 10.25.11 @ 9:01AM
Typo, sometimes you miss one on proof reading and you can't edit these things when you are done.
Skippy| 10.25.11 @ 8:34PM
The comments, even without the missing letters, are right on.
These clowns remind me of the NYT after WW2, proclaiming Germany to be unmanageable, and our occupation a mistake.
Occam's Tool| 10.26.11 @ 2:10PM
Yet, you are more coherent than many who type better but suffer from "spring in the ass syndrome."
Thanks for existing, Mr. Hawk.
(Think of a child's toy with a spring in the rear.)
Dick Nome| 10.25.11 @ 9:03AM
Arrrrrrgh.
canuckistani| 10.25.11 @ 11:16AM
No, but we can speculate on things to come.
Saudi is about as hardcore Shariah-based country on the planet and we have superb normalized relations with them. Why? because we long ago aligned our interests with them - commerce. The rest is esoteric and does not rise to the level of military interference in the real world.
We should be applying the Saudi-US model across the board and stop speculating as to why or what a world without the Junior vanity project would look like.
Occam's Tool| 10.26.11 @ 2:11PM
Canuckistani: the Saudis fund much home grown terror in the US, as well as evil extremist Mosques in the US. They are NO friend of ours---they sell oil to us. Oil that we could replace with Canadian oil with a pipeline.
Solo| 10.25.11 @ 8:15AM
You know...the "Monday Morning Quarterback" is the most brilliant quarterback who ever played the game. Or....if I could read tomorrow's stock prices today, I'd could make Warren Buffett look like a rank amateur.
Were there dissenting voices prior to our entry into Iraq? Yes. Of course there were. There are always dissenting voices for every decision.
They're crowing now because they think they see the failure that they predicted.....in some cases, actively rooted for. But...they can not have "known" the outcome anymore than Bush could.
George Bush was faced with only bad choices concerning Iraq:
Confirm what the Intelligence community was telling him or
Ignore the information and hope for the best.
Too bad that all the Iraq War detractors couldn't muster up the patriotism to lend the President their Crystal Balls so that he, too, (like them) could look forward into history instead of back like the rest of us mere mortals.
Moe Blotz| 10.25.11 @ 8:40AM
If we had dropped the big Nuke and glazed the sandy area in question, we would still be left with a bigger pane than we have now.
Dick Nome| 10.25.11 @ 9:02AM
A pane in the glass, eh??
Moe Blotz| 10.25.11 @ 10:52AM
Aye.
Skippy| 10.25.11 @ 8:35PM
Ouch!
Occam's Tool| 10.26.11 @ 2:12PM
But a pretty one, as opposed to Ron Paul.
canuckistani| 10.25.11 @ 11:28AM
Yes, the dissenters did know the outcome....another misadventure of the West getting in the middle of a 1000 year old blood feud.
Our best hope is a Saudi-style detente where a stable government can wrangle the genetic disparities internally. We'll see.
My preference was to break up the country within the first year a la Czechoslovakia and not Yugoslavia.
As for Bush -he and his cabal asked for the data! It wasn't suddenly dropped in his lap and he was forced as CnC to "make the call" like it was Failsafe or 13 days in May. This was entirely his conception.
It was Junior that saw bogeymen where none existed. He chose this path and he will be judged for it in years to come.
Cheney and Rummy pandered to his baser instincts, exacted whatever they wanted and he, like an automaton or a willing participant, signed the orders.
The US is not prepared to compete with China and Russia on different power tiers. Our choices in Iraq were ham-handed, lacked nuance and were derived from programs more effective in 70's banana republic takeovers than a post-Cold War landscape. The players have changed, as has the script and the quality of the production. We need surround-sound THX, not mono.
Drunken Sailor| 10.25.11 @ 11:45AM
And I guess all those in Congress that voted for this were duped by the Commander in Chief the media kept telling us was stupid. Which is it, he was a dunce or a genuis to fool Congress?
sabinal| 10.25.11 @ 10:14PM
thank you x 3
sooner or later we would have had to deal with Saddam. We would have never gotten involved with him if he did not invade Kuwait in 89. Then we had to babysit his butt for 10 years via no-fly zones. And we are suppose to consider him an ally ? whatevs
And we have congress for a reason like you said. If W's plan was truly kookoo for Cocoa Puffs, they could have stopped it or stopped writing the checks after Duelfer reports. But they kept writing them - both parties.
sooner or later SH would have tried something else, or died leaving a massive power vacuum. to me it was a question of when not why
William Z| 10.25.11 @ 9:00AM
If the Democrats hadn't become the opposition, it won't have mattered.
Lee Ghume| 10.25.11 @ 10:54AM
IF my mother had two balls, she would have been my father. Maybe that is why I am a little nuts.
George S| 10.25.11 @ 9:09AM
Please. Electing Obama and the Democrats together did more damage to this country than Saddam could have ever hoped to accomplish.
canuckistani| 10.25.11 @ 11:36AM
How so?
Did BHO create another 2M veterans?
Did the dems enact new unfunded liabilities and end the surplus?
Did the dems lard up key oversight agencies with incompetent or malevolent hacks?
Do the dems have anyone near the sheer deviousness of Gramm? or let the likes of Abramoff into their quarters?
They may, but the record is the record. As an American who has not voted dem, I look at the records of both parties for thelast 2 decades, and I simply don't see what you are seeing.
The GOP had the power, they were elected on the Contract on America and compassionate conservativism - pitch perfect for spectators here, and they blew it.
They owned the levers of power and did NOTHING but rack up debts and divide the country deeply. Well done.
Solo| 10.25.11 @ 1:03PM
What a completely asinine narrative!
"Did BHO create another 2M veterans?"
No...and either did anyone else. It's a volunteer force!
"Did the dems enact new unfunded liabilities and end the surplus?"
Yes! And it dates back all the way to FDR.
Oh....and the "Surplus" to which you refer was pure fiction based on CBO numbers which assumed maximum tax receipts (as in the temporary Dot-Com bubble) to be forever un-changing.
Iow......the "Surplus" was in projections--not in funds on hand.
"Did the dems lard up key oversight agencies with incompetent or malevolent hacks?"
Buuuuwaaahahahaha! Are you kidding me? We're still paying in SPADES for the mischief played by the Clintonistas. We'll probably NEVER be rid of the "Obama Effect".
"Do the dems have anyone near the sheer deviousness of Gramm? or let the likes of Abramoff into their quarters?"
Buuuuuwaaaahahahaha! You're killing me!
"(T)he deviousness of Gramm", you say?
Just pick a democrat. ANY democrat!
Oh...and Abramoff was a major democrat party donor. And...Soros (who is an Abramoff times 1000 for the damage he's done to economies) is a major funder of radical leftist causes--in cahoots with the Clintonistas, by the way.
Yeah..."the record is the record"! We agree there.
Our deficit spending went from $180 Billion under Bush to about $2 Trillion under Obama and the democrats.
Unemployment went from about 5% under Bush to 9.1% under Obama and the dems.
And...our triple A rating under Bush went to AA+ under Obama and the dems.
And finally....the 'division' in the country is also a result of the democrats refusing to give up on their socialist ambitions. So..I guess if we just capitulated to the democrats, there wouldn't be any "divide", huh?
Occam's Tool| 10.26.11 @ 2:16PM
Canuckistani:
Sad, sad, sad. I increasingly read Weasel Zippers and less and less this site.
Did the dems enact new unfunded liabilities and end the surplus? (no, but they dug us deeper into debt than anyone could.)
Did the dems lard up key oversight agencies with incompetent or malevolent hacks?
(Dear G-d, you believe that they DIDN'T? Van Jones, Napolitano, Holder, Chu (I think gas should be $8.00/gallon---his Nobel was NOT in economics), Berwick...My G-d, man!)
William R| 10.25.11 @ 9:33AM
One of the biggest blunders in our history. Radical NeoCons took over foreign policy after 9/11 and drove the country over the cliff!!
canuckistani| 10.25.11 @ 11:47AM
The Neocons did not take over the country.
Cheney had an agenda that was an outcropping of the academic meanderings of the neocons.
History will examine how he was implicated in the Junior 2000 campaign in the first place. He was an odd choice for me at the time, but now it all begins to make sense. Cheney resented 41's limp-wristed end to the Gulf War, and through Halliburton, endeavored to expand the private arm of US hegemony worldwide. He needed a willing candidate, with a familial axe to grind, to correct the perceived sins of the father. The Neocons, shocked by Willie's footsy with Arafat and half-hearted examination of Al Qaeda, had to conceive of pretexts that would enable a dimwit like Junior to chomp on. But they needed an emissary.
As an oilman and ex CIA director, Bush 41 knew what Cheney and Rummy et al were, and he smartly rebuffed them. Junior, with his Electra complex, was ready to be that dupe.
Bill| 10.25.11 @ 9:39AM
The biggest blunder we committed in Iraq was not handing admininstration of the country over to the U.N. as soon as we overthrew Saddam Hussein.
Iraq, like Afghanistan, is a set of circumstances that is unwinnable for us. Getting rid of Saddam was the right thing to do, but once we got rid of him, we should have gotten out and let the U.N. f**k it up.
Moe Blotz| 10.25.11 @ 10:56AM
Right, the U.N. blue helmets could have taken over the Uday-Qusay rape rooms for fun and profit.
canuckistani| 10.25.11 @ 11:49AM
Bill is on to something. Running away from our messes is a strong American trait since WW2.
Bill| 10.25.11 @ 11:53AM
It's the European thing to do, eh?
Occam's Tool| 10.26.11 @ 2:17PM
Indeed, as long as our boys were not in that force, Bill.
The UN troops are worthless scum and deserve to get blown apart by IEDs.
Timothy L. Pennell| 10.25.11 @ 9:45AM
Look. Hindsight is a waste of time. And, I believe that, like a Broken Clock, the Democrats actually do it get it right, from time to time. I believe that they are correct, when they say that: FREEDOM cannot be IMPOSED on some people. And that: DEMOCRACY isn't for everyone.
I hate to say it, but they would appear to be right. These people are incapable of Governing themselves with Equality, and Freedom, and Justice. These things are Incompatible with the Tenants of their Religion.
Islam interprets to SUBMIT. It is a Religion IMPOSED by the Sword, and Maintained, today, by the Barrel of a Gun.
Our form of Government, according to one of our Founding Fathers: John Adams, can "Only survive, if our people are Good, and Honest, and believe in the Judeo/Christian Values that GOD has given us".
The Arabs belong to a Cult of Death. They Pray to a God of MURDER, Subjugation, and MISERY.
The idea that they will EVER be anything other than the Heartless, Without Mercy, Hardcore BUTCHERS of Innocent Men, Women, and CHILDREN? Is a Fantasy that will NEVER come true.
If the West wants PEACE? They'd better start getting serious, about Preparing for WAR.
Moe Blotz| 10.25.11 @ 11:02AM
So the Democrats got it right when they voted overwhelmingly to authorise the use of force in Iraq, then got it right again when they claimed to have been against the war in the run up to our midterm and presidential elections.
canuckistani| 10.25.11 @ 11:50AM
No, they were not the president. They simply gave him the dough to do it. It was his order and his order alone that started the war.
I actually put a great deal of onus on the Commander in Chief. He wanted the job - lumps and all.
TrueBlue| 10.25.11 @ 4:02PM
They could have voted no, but they didn't. Obviously they were more concerned with their career than standing up for what they supposedly believed in. They were all for the war, until they were against it, just like so many political hacks still screaming about it today.
It was the right thing to do, but we should have gone in with an actual long term plan, or gotten out after we took Saddam down. That or just nuked the bugger and whatever palace he was in at the time to drive the point home to the rest of the region. Can't go back and change what was done though, and it makes more sense to stay until everything is stable than to leave the place for Iran. What's done is done though, time will determine whether things turn out as people predict or not.
Les Nesman| 10.25.11 @ 10:30PM
We're out of money & we are out of will for war. All of us died a little bit in this damned war, I think.
Occam's Tool| 10.26.11 @ 2:18PM
TLP: Until Sharia Delenda Est is established. Then there will be something that can be done to help their children's children.
Peter McGrath| 10.25.11 @ 10:13AM
"Iraq is not a friend, much less an ally of the United States. The Iraqi government regards the United States with little gratitude and much contempt."
Obama, from Day 1, adopted the "Cut, Tuck Tail, and Run" doctrine in Iraq. It's easy to see why Iraqis would have so little regard for a foreign power that liberated them from Baathist tyranny - only to stand idly by while tyranny of another form - imported from Iran - sets up shop.
America's current flaccid leadership deserves nothing but contempt.
Obama in the W.H., an inexperienced political hack appointee, and laughing-stock the world over, as Secretary of State, and it's little wonder that we're viewed with such derision in the region.
This adminstration blew it in Iraq, and lost that nation to a creeping despotism which will soon turn the entire region against us.
Brubaker| 10.25.11 @ 10:36AM
That's a concise summary of events in Iraq during the Obama administration. Now, as we pull out all combat resources, we leave behind an Iraq that is destabilized, lacking in leadership and extremely vulnerable to the aspirations of Iran's Mullahs.
We cannot know what might have happened had we not entered Iraq, but we can be fairly certain that the worst is yet to come.
canuckistani| 10.25.11 @ 11:57AM
That is simply not true. Iraq is not derivative of Iran at all. It may be other way around.
Their shi'a religion is actually seen as more traditional than Iran's. They will never consider the Supreme Ayatollah as their commander and cultural and language differences will prevent any commonwealth developing.
Shi'as also consider themselves Arab - another dealbreaker.
I truly belive the Iraqi regime wants to be left alone - by everybody. We have a zero batting average in nation-building since 1945. They know it, it's just us that doesn't.
Peter McGrath| 10.25.11 @ 3:02PM
Yeah, right, cultural and language differences, "traditional" Shi'a versus "autocratic" Shi'a, and above all - the different kinds of turbans Iraqis and Iranians wear, will make all the difference in the world in keeping Iraq out of Iran's sphere of control.
What a load of Shiite.
Let me beg to differ: all of the above add up to exactly nothing when Al Sadr, or his minions, come knocking at your door late at night, or grab you off of a busy street, never to be seen again.
The gangster regimes of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao mastered the art of deploying terror to achieve and keep a death grip on power. Iran is an apt pupil and even deploys the strawman of anti-semiticism - just as the Nazis did - to justify the brutality and lawlessness of their evil regime.
Nope - the craven Americans have fled the stage. Cue the misery, terror, and piles of corpses which are as sure to follow as night follows day.
Skippy| 10.25.11 @ 8:43PM
From now on, let's just utterly destroy any annoying Muslim states, and let Allah sort out the turbans.
I frankly don't care whether they all live or all die.
These savages, raised on dishonesty and hatred, can never be anyone's friend.
I hope the next POTUS is as ballsy as GWB, and has an even badder Cheney alongside him to help our enemies meet their maker...by the millions.
Les Nesman| 10.25.11 @ 10:31PM
Yeah! Skippy for President! Does God talk to you too?
Occam's Tool| 10.26.11 @ 2:20PM
Tens of millions will be required, Skippy. Think of how many deaths it took to defeat Germany and Japan---and the Islamists are 8 times more numerous.
Occam's Tool| 11.8.11 @ 5:52PM
Correct, Skippy. The only question I have is how many Americans will the Liberals allow these scum to kill before they are forced to agree with you by overwhelming public sentiment.
TrueBlue| 10.25.11 @ 4:11PM
Zero batting average in nation building since 1945? What's Japan then? Or Germany for that matter? Japan worked because those left in charge actually took into account the local mindset. Germany would have recovered a lot faster if it hadn't been split in two (more the fact that nobody wanted a war with Russia after all the years of WW2 than any fault of ours), and if France had been willing to forgive them the WW1 debt that was the reason Hitler was able to get the Germans to focus on the Jews and then the rest of Europe as the problem in the first place. Either way, both were successful because the mindsets of the locals were taken into account during the rebuilding (easy with Germany since they held the same basic moral value system). Since then those in charge have tried to force our views and methods on the regions we have been in, and that's why the nation-building hasn't worked.
Low average yes, zero average no. At least give credit where it's due.
Peter McGrath| 10.25.11 @ 5:33PM
For that matter, how about South Korea, the Phillipines, Kuwait, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark, and Norway (the latter 6 - including West Germany - having received substantial nation-building assistance under the Marshall Plan). Nope - it's just inaccurate to call America's efforts to promote global economic development a failure.
We've done more to aid the cause of human freedom than any other nation - or people - in the history of the world.
Skippy| 10.25.11 @ 8:46PM
Yes, we have.
But for me, enough nation-building.
I'm ready for some nation-crushing.
Herb Tarlek| 10.25.11 @ 11:49PM
I'm ready for some money borrowing so we can do some nation crushing. Unfortunately I think we are both going to be right, but I don't think either one of us is going to like who ends up crushed.
Occam's Tool| 10.26.11 @ 2:20PM
Take their oil. Save the money.
al| 10.25.11 @ 10:14AM
"with benefit of 20-20 hindsight..." 'nuff said.
Citizen Jerry| 10.25.11 @ 10:24AM
Should Saddam have stayed in power? You're kidding, right? So he could continue running his opponents through the plastic shredder? How about keeping the rape rooms open for his idiot sons? No, I'd say we helped rid the earth of an evil family.
canuckistani| 10.25.11 @ 11:59AM
If you asked an average American if we were to send 2M troops to a foreign country for rape rooms and torture chambers of opponents, what would the answer be?
Nope.
The WMDs were the ONLY way Junior could get the pretext he needed to pull the trigger.
TrueBlue| 10.25.11 @ 4:13PM
The fact the WMDs existed and that Saddam had scud systems for long range deployment being a horrible pretext after all.
Skippy| 10.25.11 @ 8:47PM
You'll find them in Syria, where they have been for 9 years.
Idiot.
Herb Tarlek| 10.25.11 @ 11:54PM
The idiot move was not definitively linking Saddams' Iraq to 911. Had Bush done this, we wouldn't be having this discussion. He could have something made up, like a big banner on an aircraft carrier or something, saying " Saddam sponsored student VISAs for Wahabbists" or something like that, not "Mission Accomplished". Instead, we had him saying that Iraq had nothing to do with it. Nice one Dumya! You just deep sixed American foreign policy for a generation because you didn't find any yellow cake!
Occam's Tool| 10.26.11 @ 2:23PM
Skippy, I hope my daughter, when she grows up, marries a guy who thinks like you. G-d Bless.
Drunken Sailor| 10.25.11 @ 10:24AM
And if Obama had encouraged and supported the Iranian youths during their rebellion the movement may have grown and kept the Iranian goverment in their own backyard.
Now who's to blame for Iran moving into Iraq?
canuckistani| 10.25.11 @ 12:18PM
Junior.
BHO did support the uprisings - but do not forget, it was RR that dealt with Iranians. Bush 41 and Willie kept them caged. It was Junior that finally cleared the decks for Tehran.
Stop lying to yourself.
the Iranians are not stupid. They've had the front row view of Russian American and Israeli maneuverings since they stormed the embassy 32 years ago.
Unlike us, they have not started an aggressive war in their short history. We, on the other hand, have - under false pretenses.
We also played both sides against eachother under RR during our elegant little game of chess with the reds.
The press gets all frothy when a little international intrigue comes up like the Saudi Ambassador assassination plot. We have thousands of agents and informants worldwide. Iran does, so does China, Israel, Russia and good ole 007.
We really have no clue (us, not the G) what the Saudi regime is doing to Iranian interests, yet we automatically extrapolate their workings as shots to America and Israel. We lack the gray matter to play this game any longer, and are simply echoists for sensationalist propaganda.
Drunken Sailor| 10.25.11 @ 1:58PM
First of all you, your no senior male realative of mine so keep the junior in your sock. BHo supported the Iraninan green movement? How and when? No arguments about RR and Bush41 except the Bush41 stopped the march through Bahgdad a little short, in my opion.
Iran not started a war? Debatable but they have financed terrorist orginazations and provided arms against us without us declaring war on them. In my book that is splitting hairs. We should have backed and armed rebels in their nation. I have no problem with covert ops, every nation does it.
You seem to have no problem with it, yet you have a problem with us openly declaring war on Iraq, against a guy who was openly thumbing his nose at dozens of treaty issues and UN resolutions put in place after Desert Sheild/Storm. I don't get your twisted logic. Was the war handled wrong? In many ways yes. Did we go in with faulty intel? Most definitely. Faulty, not fabricated. Happens all the time. Any combat vet can tell you Intel is only good until you make contact. Then all bets are off.
TrueBlue| 10.25.11 @ 4:15PM
Don't forget that Iran declared war on us in 1979. Most people just choose to ignore the fact is all because they don't see Iran as a threat.
Les Nesman| 10.25.11 @ 10:34PM
We're still at war with Korea & they launched a missile at Hawaii, have a verifiable nuclear detonation, & a terminally ill crackerjack running the show. I say we invade tomorrow if China will lend us the money to do so.
Occam's Tool| 10.26.11 @ 2:24PM
Yes. INDEED. We still have an open war case with those scum. Absolutely RIGHT, True Blue.
PCC| 10.25.11 @ 10:48AM
Truman's decision to drop the atom bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not an especially difficult one in the context of defeating the enemy, ending the war and saving lives (up to one million Allied lives and perhaps as many Japanese lives).
Bush's decision was a more difficult one, both in the moment and even in the hypothetical case presented by Mr. Goldstein, though a less momentous one.
Only someone with a paucity of historical knowledge could suggest otherwise.
Kingofthenet| 10.25.11 @ 11:12AM
No we should stay there 100 years like McCain wanted....
sabinal| 10.25.11 @ 10:21PM
you mean like the 60+ years we are staying in europe?
cicero| 10.25.11 @ 11:22AM
The problem was not in going into Iraq and ridding the world of Saddam. The problem was in trying to make Iraq, (and Afganistan) into a liberal western style democracy. A show of overwhelming force; the destruction of the regime; and a triumphant exit would have been the correct object lesson. Going in, throwing out the existing dictator, rebuilding the country so that it was better off than before we went in, and then turning it over to the next dictator, teaches nothing more than the fact that America is run by foolish people. And, we are not even asking an oil rich country, that we saved, and rebuilt, to pay us back.
Drunken Sailor| 10.25.11 @ 11:46AM
But, but the liberals keep telling me the war was for oil!! How dare you shatter their bubble and dreams.
canuckistani| 10.25.11 @ 12:33PM
We have not rebuilt it.
My client did business with them before and after the war. They are not even close to being prepared for national tenders - outside of US viceroy offices. The electrical and utility infrastructures are still broken, and the school systems are without budgets.
Before, he would deal with government ministries on tenders, ship his product on time and get paid within 30 days. Today, he deals with a hack from Chicago, gets paid late and has no clue if his products (hospital equipment) actually arrived at their destinations.
Liberal Western-style democracy is not in the interests of the US, it never was or will be. If it was, the US would have waited for NATO to join the crusade. Junior did not wait for them, because dissent is not useful when planning dubious expeditions.
Have you been asleep during your history lessons?
the next dictator....too funny. I thought as a democrat, that will be up to Iraqis to decide?
I remember it taking a quaint rebellion 12 years from their declaration of independence to full ratification of their constitution, and they only had 39,000 white male votes in their first election.
Would they have asked for a benevolent master to "stick around"?
Perhaps it takes time for things to germinate.
sabinal| 10.25.11 @ 10:23PM
you may be right, but now Tunisia, Libya and Egypt are in the same boat. And this time, it is Obama (D) who is promoting this idea of hope for a western style democracy. How is this any better than Bush and Iraq/Afghanistan?
davelnaf| 10.25.11 @ 11:33AM
It’s a tough call, alright. It depends on how you look at the issue of a Saddam free Iraq. The benefits that most of Iraq’s Shiites enjoyed from Saddam’s ouster will be short term; the long term picture of domination by Iran is not going to be good—this they will learn to their sorrow in a few years or less. The short term situation for the Sunni minority has been so-so; the long term outlook of domination by Iraq’s Shiites and Iran is going to be very bad—it could even get to the level that the Shiite’s suffered under Saddam. The war was a plus for the US only because we removed someone who might have been conspiring logistically with Al Qaeda to give the US another 9/11. The long term outlook for the US is not good though: Iran might, if it gets desperate enough about its internal disintegration, seize Iraq’s oil fields Saddam style. And even if they don’t they’ll still get some of Iraq’s oil revenues. Also, don’t bet on Iran not going after the people that helped the US during the Anbar Awakening.
Because it looks like Iran will eventually be the winner of the second Gulf War it would have been better if the US had concentrated on Afghanistan and stayed out of Iraq.
canuckistani| 10.25.11 @ 12:38PM
Exactly.
But what's done is done and we have to move forward. BHO had a broken state dpeartment and a broken defense department and a biblical firestorm domestically when he walked into the Oval.
If being patient and deliberate enables us to fashion a modest working foreign policy, then I am supportive.
I believ one of the 12 steps is atonement, we have to get through them one day at a time.
ole meanie| 10.25.11 @ 11:49AM
This is not an original question. The consequences of removing Saddam-- a power vacuum in the Middle East, and the resulting emergence of Iran as the regional superpower-- were discussed in various policy magazines before George Bush invaded Iraq. The consequences were very foreseeable, even to George W Bush.
The entire adventure has been an utter fiasco. The current argument that we spent 4400 lives and a trillion dollars, and that our leaving makes it all for nothing begs the question: what if we waste another 440 lives and another trillion dollars for nothing, does this somehow make the loss of the first 4400 and the first trillion “meaningful”?
What is going to happen next would have happened next if Saddam Hussein had died in “office”. We gave the Iraqis an opportunity they have quite adequately proved they didn’t want, and certainly did not use properly. Were we supposed to stay until the Iraqis became sufficiently interested in their own fates to behave responsibly, learn to govern themselves, rebuild their economy, and take responsibility for their own security? If so, we would be there 100 years. If we waited for them to become friends of the principles we claim to hold dear, we would be there 1000 years. If we waited for them to become a “strategic ally” or a beacon of liberty in the Middle East, the sun would burn out first.
We should immediately form an American Lincoln Brigade for all those fire-breathers who huff and puff about how Obama is running out on the poor brave helpless Iraqis. Let them go to replace American soldiers who have uncomplainingly served in that flyblown hellhole.
Kingofthenet| 10.25.11 @ 11:58AM
One word., DAISYCUTTER
Al Adab| 10.25.11 @ 12:04PM
Thermobaric
Occam's Tool| 10.26.11 @ 2:25PM
Neutron.
Kingofthenet| 10.25.11 @ 12:05PM
Seriously Thou, One thing you NeoCons don't get is you can do something 'Good' but it still might not be 'Worth it'. For example you 'could' build a Dog House out of solid gold bars, it would be easy to clean, look great and never rot. would it be worth the several million it cost? Will 5,000 dead American boys and a Trillion dollars spent be worth it in Iraq? Who knows? The FINAL chapter will be written 50 years from now...
Simon Templar| 10.25.11 @ 5:56PM
So, then why don't you shut and let it be written? See you in fifty years if this nation still exist with you idiots running it.
axbucxdu| 10.26.11 @ 12:43PM
Quite right there, King. Henceforth EVERY government program must start paying, in other words be "Worth it". Otherwise, they get the axe.
Occam's Tool| 10.26.11 @ 2:26PM
Who said that I didn't think Neutron bombs in Iran wouldn't be worth it? I'm serious as a crutch. Carter should have annihilated them in '79. It would have saved thousands of American and Iraqi lives.
Franco| 10.25.11 @ 12:35PM
In retrospect, yes, the Iraq war was a stupid mistake and a huge blunder. So what if Hussein was the Stalin of the Middle East? Josef Stalin himself was the Stalin of the Soviet Union and we never invaded that place.
canuckistani| 10.25.11 @ 12:40PM
Exactly.
My goodness, the gang is starting to understand!
My Tuesday just improved.
Al Adab| 10.25.11 @ 2:33PM
The war, the invasion, no. Attempts at nation building, yes.
Occam's Tool| 10.26.11 @ 2:27PM
As usual, Al, correct.
Knowitall| 10.25.11 @ 2:17PM
So you got a country run by a bloodthirsty tyrant with access to unlimited oil money with which to entice jobless Russian nuclear physicists (amongst others). You've got very limited intel capability inside the country - witness our surprise in 1995 when Saddam's son-in-law defected and revealed the extent of the Saddam's clandestine WMD programs. You've got a corrupt Oil for Food program which is falling apart as Europe yearns for an end to the post-Gulf War boycott and access to Iraqi oil resources. Then 9/11 happens and you've got two of the planet's most notorious terrorists living in Baghdad - Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal. What do ya do next? I'm just sayin'…too bad we didn't have Hellfire missiles on our Predators back then, but is that a road we want to go down? If so, why not take out Imadinnerjacket next time he walks out on a balcony?
Paul Kotik | 10.25.11 @ 2:33PM
I don't understand why we need any kind of agreement with the Iraqis in order to keep forces there for as long as we like, in whatever numbers we like.
WE CONQUERED THE PLACE, remember?
Smirking Weasel| 10.25.11 @ 2:39PM
Yes.
No, wait....HELL YES.
Christopher Manion| 10.25.11 @ 2:53PM
Ah, if only Bush had known!
But who sold him the bill of goods? Richer Perle, et al. Are they now apologizing for their profound errors? No, they live and die by the dialectic: what was true yesterday is not true today, and they're not sure about tomorrow. This profound loss of metaphysical truth has mortally wounded our country's spirit.
Note to author: "Those [conservatives] who opposed the war from the start" did so on the basis of the Constitution and Just War theory. Richer Perle pretended that all the war's opponents were leftists -- sure, Richer, all those leftists like John Paul II.
In this author's version of diverting the blame, he reveals the telltale letter of his dialectic here:
"Not that such details matter to the Iraqis."
Ah, don't they? They matter to you, but not to the Iraqis? So you are superior to the Iraqi people you pretend to love enough to shed blood (of others) to "liberate"?
Well, must must liberate the poor oppressed Iraqis? Or must we condescend to the inferior Iraqis and conquer them and occupy them until they "mature"? All in the name of democracy?
So are Iraqis equal, or are they inferior? Oh, that changes all the time in the Trotskyite kaleidoscope. As Madeline Albright put it, killing half a million of them was "worth it." What's half a million more?
Saddam was a "Madman," Bush told Tim Russert. Send in the Marines! We will run out of Marines long before we run out of madmen.
This combat by perpetual contradiction is typical of the closed neoconservative mind. We're all for "democracy," except when "democratic" governments give us the bird.
Remember how Turkey turned down $35 BILLION that Bush offered them so he could send troops through Turkey in 2003? They would not be bought. Their parliament actually voted against it. Our congress never declared a constitutional war. In the dialectic, does that make Turkey superior to BushObama's America, where wars are never declared -- or even called wars any more?
Interesting how the author mentions Iraq's Christians, who are being exterminated. The Christian evangelicals who supported the war -- Bush, first and foremost -- have been strangely silent about their plight. Why do you think that is? It can't be simple shame. Shame in our culture died a generation ago. Like Madeline Albright, do they think that it was "worth it"?
Now Santorum pouts that Obama has "lost" the war. What a pathetic canard.
One thing for sure: from Bush and Cheney and Richer Perle on down, those who brought us this war will always blame somebody else for the disasters they have wrought -- not the least of which is President Barry Obama.
And they will never, ever apologize.
Simon Templar| 10.26.11 @ 12:31PM
Maybe they will apologize when Liberals can apologize for undermining and losing the Vietnam War as well.
martin j smith| 10.25.11 @ 3:23PM
Answer to the question: NO
cicero| 10.25.11 @ 3:48PM
All I's saying is that we need not conquer and rebuild every country whose dictator attacks America or its interests. Punish, yes. But destroy, rebuild, and try to convert to our philosophy, no.
We need to let everyone know that it is dangerous to mess with thee U.S. We don't have to give everybody an incentive to do so - if you attack us, we will spend our treasure and lives to make you as modern as you can tolerate.
abdullah shabazz| 10.25.11 @ 4:15PM
As a right winger, who thinks President Bush is a decent and charming man, I'm sorry to admit this:
We lost, cause of Bush.
The Shiite Iraqi govenment he set up just kicked us out. Nobody... Obama, Clinton, McCain or Bush could have stopped them. Iran is in the catbird seat.
Whatever you can say about the NeoCons, this outcome wasnt their Plan A.
Simon Templar| 10.25.11 @ 5:48PM
Nothing in this world has changed. It is essentially the same world as it was in 1776 with same or similar forces that seek our end and destruction. No level of isolationism or aggression is going to change that, there will always be new forces and enemies of freedom.
What has changed is us and that change will be our undoing. It's root and its beginning can be found in the grand 1960's when it became not only tolerated but fashionable.
It is simply this, the willingness to politicize our national security for personal political gain whether it be for the personal political benefit of a single politician, a party , or interest group. We used to consider this treason.
Now, spare me the response that this dissent has always been there and the argument that this is an American tradition. You see I am not talking about objections to any particular war or policy and the natural disagreements that arise in a free nation when that nation struggles over the proper course of action to take in its defense. Actually we see very little of that. What we have and do see is something entirely different.
That is entire partys, interest groups, and individuals that organize to do everything they can to undermine the national interest, policys, and war efforts for their personal gain whether or not that gain is at tremendous cost in American lives, treasure, and world status or not.
America is in decline because America works against itself.
A certain celebrity was allowed to consort with the enemy, aid and abet that enemy, travel to that enemy nation, participate in anti-American propaganda during the height of that war without a single action being taken aginst that person, remember that? That was the start. It is still going on today in thousands of other forms and actions.
Iraq was no different. If you believe we lost then that is because you wanted.
There were many that worked tireslessly for that outcome. You know damn well what I mean if you have even an once of intellectual honesty.
So, if your one of those with the 20/20 vision, then instead of complaining after the fact, suggest courses of action before and during the conflict besides sticking your head in the sand or nuking them. Think a little more about the nation than your little petty agendas.
Simon Templar| 10.25.11 @ 6:03PM
Oh, by the way...see much difference between the Liberal trolls here and the liberaltarians? Not a single point, not a single false premise, not a single accusation, not a single revisionism different...exactly the same...
Maybe our libertarians Paulbots could explain that for us....tell us how you are different...
Les Nesman| 10.25.11 @ 10:38PM
The difference between a Paul supporter & a Liberal statist is this. A Paul supporter realizes we will run out of Marines before we run out of madmen to overthrow. A Liberal statist does not.
Simon Templar| 10.26.11 @ 12:28PM
Then maybe you could explain to us why you share the other 99 liberal talking points?
Occam's Tool| 10.26.11 @ 2:28PM
Not if you use nukes and spare not the enemy civilians....worked for us in WWII....
oldfart| 10.25.11 @ 6:58PM
When the invasion was announced I told my better half this was a massive mistake. I think G.
W. did it on the rumor that Sadam tried to take down Bush 1.
Sadam understood the region and kept both sides under his heal for good reason.
Taking down Sadam will cause 100 years of war in that part of the world and a lot more people will die than Sadam ever would have taken out.
Assad understands this as well be we are trying to take him out. Assad welcomed the Christians from Iraq after Sadam fell.
The only thing this culture understands or respects is the heel on the back of the neck.
Occam's Tool| 10.26.11 @ 2:30PM
Not a rumor---reported in the Liberal media---check out Frontline site on PBS...assasination attempt did occur, and Clinton administration did retaliate. (Correctly)
ejp| 10.25.11 @ 7:18PM
I think if the Iraqis in general aren't inclined to be friends with the US, consider how they have had to endure a mantra from one major political party that accepts it as a truism of life that they should still be ruled by Saddam and that liberating them was an act of evil. Small wonder that they wouldn't show the kind of gratitude to the ones in charge who hold them in such rank contempt because that was the position needed to satisfy their own disloyal political agenda.
Les Nesman| 10.25.11 @ 10:48PM
After reading these comments it is clear that no real lessons have been learned. Many of you have quite rightly noted that the Democrats supported Bush in this when it started & there was little dissent from any of us. Some of you continue to defend this invasion which is admirable but not supported by the facts as they have been revealed over time.
My take on this is, this is easily the most damaging foreign engagement the US has ever prosecuted, it has probably ruined any chance of effective soft diplomacy for at least 20 years, it has fatally damaged any credibility we might have calling for regime change until further notice. We have hung a rotten pork chop around our necks & will have to live with the stench for a long , long time. Only regime change in the US will clear the stench, the two party franchise may have burned down the restaurant after this war of choice.
Simon Templar| 10.26.11 @ 1:01PM
Yes, and just what are the lessons here?
No amount of reasons or arguments for invasion of Iraq will satisfy your crowd. When you are done with Iraq, the rhetoric will the be focused on Afghanistan. You have made smarmy remarks about the Korean War and every war this nation ever involved itself. The great leader of your crowd identifies and sympathies with America's number one enemy and never seems to not find fault with the US on every single foreign policy or engagement. What do you have to offer as an alternative...isolationalistic policy and soft diplomacy. This is just as unrealistic and dangerous as the neo con monster philosophy of bomb first, ask questions later, and pay for a rebuild that you conjure up.
Facts? Hmmm. Your facts or other's facts.
It is always black and white thinking with you ideologues and extremist and the real facts seem to be ignored and the new facts very flexible.
You politicized this war just like the liberals did and you said nothing when it did not serve your agenda and when it did you offered up an endless sewer of criticism and "facts" that supports your world view and objectives.
There are very few "facts" these days just revisionism. Facts like Bush rushed to war seemed to be rewarmed like that rotten porkchop when reality has shown that he took 14 months to take action. Facts like Bush acted alone and unilaterally when he took 14 months to build a coalition of dozens of nations. Facts like soft diplomacy was never attempted when in reality two adminstrations attempted just that in dealing with Iraq and it failed. So, many facts!
Facts. LOL. No one is interested in facts whether you supported the action or not.
Occam's Tool| 11.8.11 @ 5:51PM
Brilliant as usual, Simon.
POST American| 10.25.11 @ 11:17PM
-----MEANWHILE yet, back in
centuries USURER and Prussian
'Heir--is--TOXIC--rat' diddled England---
"We ARE using MASSIVE third world
immigration to DESTROY British culture
beyond repair, once and for all ---FOREVER."
-TONY BLAIR
Fmr PM/ Globalist/ Cultural EUGENIST/
--future EU President?/
--Psychopath--
(2005 Daily Mail interview
cited by ALAN WATT online)
Whither England -----wither America.
SO ---Keep a goin' kiddies! ---Keep a goin'!
------------COWED-boys and hi tech toys
------------------Just keep a goin'. . .
D Roamer | 10.25.11 @ 11:43PM
The article is not a good question. We deposed a very evil dictator and his sons. There are many in Iraq who are thankful for this sacrifice of our 4000 dead. Sadam was near finishing his chemical warfare weapons and had a mission to destroy those all around him. Had to be taken out.
Cosmo| 10.26.11 @ 12:29AM
Catastrophic blunder by Junior and Cheney.
POST American| 10.26.11 @ 3:28AM
RETRO-active IMPEACHMENT of our
past 4 CFR-RIIA front op administrations
An HUAC meets NUREMBERG inquest
and capital crimes tribunal
AUDITING, dismantling and warm, warm
prosecution for the FED, the TAX FREE
'benny violent' foundations and NGOs
X---IT and X---SPELL the EUGENICS
and London USURY front U.N.
---------REPENT for a full century of FAKE,
INTER--national USURY diddled history
---and EUGENICS bloodshed
-------------------IN A NUTSHELL---------------------
theRightRadical| 10.27.11 @ 11:13AM
In month twenty six during the reign of George the Lessor. The Legions thrust forward. This was the Great Leap Forward for Imperia, as laid down by the Jesters Feith, Boot, Kagan, and Kristol. These jesters had jumped rope to the Retrons, from the Deltrons. Except for the father of Kristol, who had came from the Nasty Trotsky. The thrust was going swimmingly. And all smiled under the big banner, as Lessor stood there. He has avenged his father, George the Slippery. The Span of Green was clipping coin heartily, and the citizens of Imperia. Who just a short time earlier were trembling at the numbers began to dance. Later that summer Lessor sealed a Mandate Unfunded for the Gray Hairs Medicine. All was well in Imperia.
Then suddenly the reports from the land faraway of our brave Legions began to become worrisome. The Browns of Akahnid; decided that they did not like the Legions being there. The flower people in Akahnid. Promised by the jesters of George were beginning to throw not flowers but IED thingies at the Legions, and the plow shears promised by the jesters to be used for Dates, and Black Gold were being pounded into swords. The Lessor did not worry though. As he shouted “Bring it On” , as though Lessor would mount his own chariot like Alexander, and ride to Akahnid. Upon hearing of this, Pat of Old, mumbled something about Bozo. Lessor dispatched his Jester Rummy to check on the Legions. Rummy heard the Legions concerns, but said to mount the Chariots we have provided, and proceed post haste. But the citizens of Imperia were somewhat aghast at this, since they were told their Legions were impervious. They had spent many Taxes, Clipped coin, and borrowed funds from the Yellows across the Sea on the Legions. Why were they not impervious? They have never been told why to this day.
The Legions were brave men fighting far from home for the honor of Imperia (not the honor of Lessor as exclaimed by the Hannitit, and the Limpbaugh) They were strong, and tough but trained for war fought long ago, between Grays and Blues, not on the streets of Foodoo, and Bagwam. The Browns had many, many tribes, and they could come in all directions. To protect themselves from the IED thingies, and the Browns slinging from the rooftops. The Legions wore much armor, which slowed their pace in the land of sand. The office of Rummy did not have all the armor nor the kind needed, so some Legions took their own meager funds and bought their armor. Ought five was the hardest year. Dickabeth of Cheney the azzzistant of the Lessor. Mentioned the Throes. His words became Pyrrhic though, and many thought he cast evil spells with his tongue. The Retrons began to speak harshness at the Deltrons, who they called the Lizards. Blaming them for the blight of the Legions.
The Lizards never wanting a crisis go to the Wastecan, began to cry foul, and march around. The tribe of the Retrons, the Conservs had never read books. They still know not the words of Alexander, and MacArthur, the wise Legion leaders of yesteryear. For if they had they would not have bought this expedition of the Lessor, which was beginning to smell like flatulence. But this did not matter to the loyal young Sha-pie-row, and the boys in the YAF. They screamed devotion for Lessor, but did not join the Legions. The Lizards and others called them Chickenhawk. A bird not seen in Imperia since the war with the Yellows of the South Shelia. Many in Imperia were displeased. Fortunately their Castles were gaining price that were reaching the Heavens. Many bought Castles called McBurgers, and were pleased with the stone meal places. A new Coin clipper, the Bernake smiled broadly, as the Castles of the citizens were entrusted to his values.
In the year ought six. Much shrieking was heard from Deltrons called Ugly Nancy, and Gutless Harry. They cajoled the citizens of Imperia with stories about bringing the Legions home. Many of the Legions had traveled to Akahnid many times. Back and forth, and since there were not enough Legions to go around. Many of the Home Guard too, had to travel to Akahnid. The Home Guard had not been called to battle in many generations, and many were in advanced age compared to the young Legions, but they did their best in the sand, and hot sun of Akahnid.
The Retrons wanted the Jester Ashcroft to use the Act of the Patriots against Ugly and the Gutless, but he could not do so. He did take Padilla a Brown from Chicago under the Lamp and into the Stockade, where he is to this very day. Throughout the time of heat in Imperia. Ugly Nancy and the Gutless spoke to the citizens. Sounding as though the Legions would be home if they appointed them. Meanwhile the Lessor spoke of Standing Up and Down. The citizens were much confused. Without objection from the Conservs, who say they like Authority spread out amongst the land. The Lessor give himself a Commission, this Act can also be used by a new Sun King if he so desires. This was the third time the rooster had crowed for the Conservs. But neither the Mandate Unfunded for the Gray Hairs nor the Act for the Small ones left Around Corners, caused them to turn their backs on Lessor and scream out in principle. No they wanted the many who shouted venom at the Lessor put in the Stockade. In the time of the Pumpkin the trick worked for Ugly and Gutless and they had many Deltrons appointed. The citizens thought the Legions would come home. If nothing else no more Clipped coin and funds borrowed from the Yellows across the Sea, for the expedition of Bush the Lessor. But this was not to be and the citizens were quite dismayed. But Ugly Nancy, and Gutless Harry had a plan. It was the Stalling plan. The blood of the Legions, and the Home Guard would still spill in the sands, so Ugly and Gutless could get their own Deltron Sun King. This is how Gutless got his name, on the blood of the Legions and Home Guard. Although Gutless made much noise about the Surges planned by the ex Deltron Kagan in ought seven. He cast for the seals anyway.
Ought eight was a year Imperia would like to forget. The value of the Castles, began to fall and the citizens wondered if they had really bought Sand Castles. The blood was still falling in the sands of Akahnid. Near the time of the Pumpkin, the Bankoks that held the notes to many of the Castles begin to scream and shout and thrust about. They cried to Lessor, and to the Coin clipper the Bernake, and to the Jester Partake. “Help Us” The Lessor spoke to the citizens, but the citizens were not swayed. So Lessor, Ugly Nancy, the Gutless, the Grump, and the Brown Eyed Handsome man met. The Grump and Brown Eye were now vying to be the new Sun King. Partake and the Bernake who said everything was OKdooky in the year ought seven, were now frowning. The citizens said “NO NO Clipped coin for the Bankoks. “ “Let them eat sand” but Ugly and the Gutless laden much pork into the Act so it could pass the second Muster, after the Poltroons frightened by the citizens, said no on the first Muster. The Lessor said he shouldn’t do this but sealed the Act anyway, as Hannitit, and Limpbaugh nodded in agreement. The Bankoks got the clipped coins, and even some borrowed from the Yellows across the Sea. And they gave the Brown Eyed many a share so he could speak from glass, with a two forked tongue, as the Lizards, who call themselves Protrons chant with him. Many citizens had to leave their homes because they had no way to gain clipped coin, and the citizens were in much dismay. Some even wondered about the future of Imperia. Then Brown Eyed Man was appointed Sun King, as many Conservs. Sat with hands under the tush and spoke venom against the Grump. This was the second appointment in a row the Retrons were pushed back with a stick.
The Sun King, is now known as the Golden Pharaoh. Speaks in deviled tongues. He got much Clipped coin from the Bankoks, so he can speak from the glass. The only way he can. The Protrons turned a blind eye to this taking of Clipped coin from the Bankoks, since they swoon over Pharaoh. Although the citizens will soon be fooled by Pharaoh. They feel bile in the mouth at the thought of the Lessor, and were happy to see him go home to Tejas.
The Retrons do not like the Pharaoh. He speaks with a two forked tongue, to the Protrons, and takes more Clipped coin and notes from the Yellows across the Sea, then even the Lessor did. The citizens hoped he would end the blood letting of the Legions but he has them fooled. He is the Lessor on the Roid. The Conservs love his blood letting but only cheer silently now, lest they fall for the Pharaoh. They hate him. He is dirty to them. The Lessor lead them into the River where he sold them, but they only hate Pharaoh. They think the Pharaoh is weak, but they will be surprised. The citizens want more then hate. They don’t like Bush the Lessor but the Conservs do, since there is not much light in themselves. The young don’t like Retons, nor do the ex Spaniards of Southwest Imperia.
The Conservs hate the Lizards more then they love the Visions that they see in their heads for Imperia. They embrace the scaredy cats who claim the Browns want them to dress funny or die, more then they trust themselves, and those who live near them. They shriek like the Lizards now, when before they took long pauses to think hard. They are empty and they will continue to lose appointments. They have to give up the Blood letting, the Stockades, the Clipped coin, and the hate for the Browns. It is time for you to love Imperia, what it meant, and what it can be more then you hate the Lizards. The Lizards can’t fix this. And neither can you unless you let go.
oil press | 11.25.11 @ 2:51AM
It was bad timing, as the S&P 500 Index returned almost 11 percent in October