In the interim I'd assert, as a clue toward arriving at the correct answer, that a group of Muslims commonly known as "Al Queda" has a certain perception of America and consequently a certain agenda we call "terrorism."

PP:You compare Iraq to Russias Attempted invasion of Afghanistan and you think Ann Coulter is "spinning out of orbit". Okay, I'll even give you a shot; in 500 words or less explain how Iraq and Afghanistan were similar. *please don't claim the Iraqis are now "freedom fighters"*

Oh that damned conservative think tank otherwise known as "the Brookings institute". Since they are staffed almost entirely (230 or so) by ivy league proffessors (some past some present) and the rest either worked for Carter (one stuck around DC until 81, is that the one you are referring to?) or Clinton, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that they lean substantially to the left. Insult? Depends on if you're offended to be a leftie. Speeder don't seem to mind

So as far as you're concerned, a discrepancy in Bush's service records (after all that talk of "desertion" turned out to be BS) and drinking fall right along the same lines as Saddam gassing hundreds of thousands of his own people and violating Un resolutions with WMD's??????? So with you I guess time does truly does heal all wounds? It did happen *years* ago after all......well at least the gassing Kurds thingie anyway and since I guess we haven't found the WMDs we'll just give him a pass on that one as well. For you I guess the graves truly are "half full".

So, when the lefites made the prediction that the "other" radicals would join in and they were wrong, but they would have been right if Saddam was still in power? Didn't they get the memo? Our goal was to depose Saddam. Maybe they were confused when they said that."

-----------------------

How is Iraq for us like Afghanistan for the Soviets? They quickly took over the country (substantially finished knocking out the government in 8 days), but faced rising resistance from Afghanis. (with 2.1 billion in help from us) The continued occupation of Afghanistan in the 10 years following those 8 days cost 22,000 Russian lives. Our misadventure in Iraq now has cost five times more lives since "Mission Accomplished" than before. How many more years of occupation do you think the Bushies have in mind?

The Brookings Institute was formed as centrist and has been tilting rightward for years. But since they still say things neocons don't like they are labled 'left' by the demagogues that offer to 'do your thinking for you.' Sources I consider thoughtful and relevant have identified a rightward trend in Brookings publications over the past 4-5 years. There are senior people from the past 5 administrations on staff overseeing thoes "ivy league professors" neocons fear so much.

The point you have so much difficulty discerning regarding timelines is this: To some, attacking Saddam in 2003 and justifying it with something he is supposed to have done in 1988 is like arresting Bush today for his drunk driving or derelection of duty years ago.

The justification 'sold' to the American people in early 2003 was that Saddam was an imminent threat to the US, somehow. Which he clearly was not.

You know, all this debating back in forth between the two sides of the fence can become nausiating after awhile. From someone who resides on the fence, let me ask you both (both sides). Ignoring whether we "won" or not, or if saddam allegedly had ties to terrorists or not. What was the whole point of going into iraq and spending billions of dollars that we don't have? Can anyone explain this, or did i miss the big billboard. I hate bush with a passion in everyway, his character, personality, everything. But to be fair i also think kerry is a f--king p--sy. But not once, has anyone on this board or even in the media gone back to the original question, which is why go into iraq in the first place? If history has taught us anything is that in third world countries, when the locals are unhappy with there government they over throw the power. Wasn't something like that going on in haiti not to long ago? So again i ask why, why go into iraq, why when we could be doing much more here for ourselves? Screw everone else and what they think, we should be concentrating on this country and this country alone.

I don't know, but I like your avitar. Makes me want to go get a slice of pie. :cool:

Survey Says...
 

The reasons for invading Iraq, in descending order of importance and moment of emphasis:

1. Saddam posessed tons of weapons of mass destruction.

2. Proven ties to Al Qeada and/or other terrorist groups.

3. Saddam was a brutal dictator, and the Iraqis wanted him gone.


Those are the top three, as I remember, and as evidence of each came up short, the emphasis was shifted to the next. I don't remember these ever being on a big billboard anywhere, but, yeah, you have really missed a lot.

Ed

______________________
Put down your books and pick up a gun
We're goin' to have a whole lotta fun.......

Speeder!

You and I agree on something!

Wow, apple pie.

But 1 was never really proven, still, #2 whether true or not doesn't make any sense. If you want to get rid of ants, you don't start picking off ever ant in the colony, you go straight for the queen. So why wasn't their any concentration on al qeada. After all, Osama Bin Laden was the one who was successfully able to launch a large, high death toll attack on the US. But yet he's still roaming about while hussein is in captivity. And #3 is true, but as was stated before, if they wanted him out, they should have done it themselves, why should we care if there dictator sucks? If memory serves right, Iraq is not the only country with a dictator that's cruel, and probably not even the worst of them.

Pete: first, thank you for your response. I understand better your reaction to my post.

I was not comparing motives with Russia. Only the situation we dind ourselves in, militarily. I do not believe that even if we did stay in Iraq, we'd lose 22,000 troops. But I do not want to lose any more than absolutely necessary before we bug out when they are "set up" to self-govern.

On the Brookings Institute, I'll take your challenge, thanks. Give me a little time...

I see your point on the timeline comparison. I do not equate drunk driving with mass murder. However, the Gulf War was -- in my mind -- appropriate and timely punishment for crimes Saddam committed up to that point in history. We effecctively disarmed him.

The 'imminent threat' issue, we will just have to disagree about. As I understand it, an imminent threat is the only legal support for the invasion of Iraq. Not only the state of the union speech, but other speeches by Bush and Cheney in the first months of 2003 clearly stated that Saddam had 'reconstituted' nuclear weapons capability.'

As for your isolationist position, it appears we suckered Saddam into attacking Kuwait, so I'd have to agree, it wasn't a great idea. Further, because Saddam was such a US puppet, we really created the monster ourselves. Following an 'isolationist' policy, Saddam might never have been brought to power in the first place.

Tech,

I don't want ot lose any more than necessary in any of our military endeavors either, but don't expect us to "bug out" like flicking a switch in Iraq. We can argue the merits of the war ad infitium (man my latin is rusty.........) but the point is, if we don't want to see everyone who died die for nothing we will need to see this to it's completion. I do however envision a day when we no longer have troops (targets) in Iraq. Or Germany. Or France. Or Korea. Or Japan. (well you get the point)

As far as "effectively disarming" Saddam, that was the point. He never adequately disarmed himself and if he did, he didn't do it to the requirements set forth in our cease fire agreement. Did we have him effectively contained? Is it possible to contain ANYONE effectively in that region? Kind of like trying to shovel sand with a pichfork if you ask me.

We had legal and moral authority to restart hostilities in Iraq the instant Saddam violated the cease fire agreement. That is a given, Bush had nothing to prove, Saddam did. And he refused. The fact that these resolutions were drawn up by the UN is a moot point. Once the UN refused to enforce their own their own resolutions they became irrelevant. As far as the question of whether he was trying to build nukes, I don't know. Did it look like he was? Apparently they had some information that that suggested it. Is that enough? How much benefit of the doubt should we give to a man that won't honor multiple UN resolutions? I wouldn't trust that SOB as far as I could throw him.

Don't believe this nonsense about suckering Saddam into invading anyone. He didn't come to us looking for permission for anything, maybe he was feeling us out for a potential reaction, but he did what he did because Kuwait had resources that he wanted. Thats it, he's a violent man who takes what he wants through force, it's in his history.

He wasn't a puppet for us and we didn't create him anymore than we created Stalin by supporting him against Hitler. We threw support towards Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war because at the time we couldn't allow Iran to destroy Iraq and dominate the region. Washington always said that our alliances should be temporary and reflect our nations best interests. At the time, that is what we did.

Consider me a "non-interventionist", I have no interest in shutting down our borders, but we need to select the actions that best suit our needs and act accordingly.

This whole "it's our fault" nonsense that is so prevalent these days is starting to get the better of me. The only reference anyone makes to our history is some sort of perceived injustice and that just doesn't get it for me. When you think of Japan, do you think of the proud Samauri, or the 15 years they spent slaughtering their neighbors in the 30's and 40's?

BTW, I saw ytour challenge to flintsone about the book. I wouldn't read that book because I don't like fiction, but if you have another one in mind, I have a couple you might enjoy (and not a neocon in the bunch).

Pete