Strange turn of events...
 

The recent decline of violence in Iraq and the accompanying drop in American casualties is great news and both welcome and long over due.

The sad part is that we rejoice when "only" 20 or 30 of our troops are killed and hundreds more maimed. How our "policy" came to this point is what should be examined.

We invaded Iraq for non-existent WMD's and to get rid of Saddam. Even if well intentioned, both were questionable. A nation that might possess WMD's is not a viable reason for my nation to invade and neither is getting rid of whomever might be in power unless that nation poses a clear and positive threat to my nation.

Next we should pay attention to what developed in Iraq. Saddam was the ultimate bad guy (unlike when he was our buddy) along with his Baathist Party and the Sunni who comprised 99% of the Baathist Party. So after deposing Saddam we immediately banned virtually all Sunni from the new Shiite ruling group we installed. As we all now know, for a variety of reasons chaos was the result of that policy.

Now, Gen. Petraeus and other commanders credit the recent good news to mostly one thing: A transformation of our policy that has resulted in getting the Sunni's intimately involved and in power in the most volatile areas.

So what we are effectlvely doing is calming Iraq by using the very same people that Saddam used to control Iraq during his evil and despotic regime!

Yes, we truly do have idiots in Washington...but none of them are among the 28,000+ that have been maimed during this exercise in lunacy.

So elect someone that will get us out of the war. Oh wait, no one has a plan that will work.

That you know.

War is messy brutal business.

By any standard, this is the "cleanest" war ever waged.

Dumbest war ever waged.

Perhaps you are too young to remember Viet Nam? 50,000+ of our people. Makes Iraq look like a walk in the park.

Yes, the difference being that we are not subjugating the Sheites and Kurds to a cruel despotic will while we are salving the wounds incurred by the heretofore in power minority Sunnis.

Meanwhile, the Sheites, surely relieved that the Sunnis are for the moment pacified, placated (so we'd like to think) and cooperating with Petraeus (smartly, to save their own skins - hey, let the Americans keep us safe for now!) have shown absolutely no compromise in terms of living and cooperating with another Muslim faction, the Sunni, who hold ireconcileably different beliefs, which beliefs have been the crux of the problem between Sunnis and Sheites for centuries and is not going to be resolved by an infidel show of force (that's us folks) trying to force them to accept oneanother's differences and cooperate in building a democratic nation in which all will peacefully coexist.

And then we have the Kurds, who'd really rather have nothing at all to do with the Sunnis and Sheites. They see themselves as seperate as well, the difference being that they don't want to enter into that argument, they just want their own state!

Ho, ho! Enter the Turks, whose heavily Kurdish populated eastern region is threatened and the game is further complicated.

In the meantime the elected government back in Baghdad is - hmmm...
what exactly is the elected "government" doing? We hear little of any progress they are making in bringing the three factions together into a body that can effectively secure the country's borders and deal with the needs to satisfy and convince all three factions that each is as important as the other and that all are what make up the country of Iraq.

Ahh...never mind...

Well, frogger's short post is difficult to deny.

While Viet Nam was by far more deadly in terms of Americans killed the number of Americans maimed both physicaly and mentally might not be so far apart, if what the military is telling us is true.

The other thing is that our stupid invasion of Iraq could have much more and far reaching long term effects than Viet Nam ever did. Mostly because of the very nature of the incredible mess called the Middle East.

QUOTE: "The other thing is that our stupid invasion of Iraq could have much more and far reaching long term effects than Viet Nam ever did."
_____________________

True statement that. (Perhaps with the word 'stupid' omitted).

History (after anyone posting on this thread is long gone) will vindicate the Bush/Chaney adventure ...you just won't be here to see it!

Oh I see. So now that _____ invasion has evolved from WMD's and getting rid of Saddam to getting our kids killed for "freedom...democracy" for the Iraqi people to "stabilizing" Iraq (who destabilized it?) to we can't leave now to we will be in Iraq for a very long time and finally to no one alive will "be here to see it" right? Well, that certainly ought to cover the collective asses of Team Bush for all their apologists.

What a crock of BS!

It always amazes me how quickly everyone forgets what Iraq was even about. I don't even see it mentioned in this thread. WMD's were a factor, they were not the reason. Spreading freedom and democracy were factors( more so side effects), they were not the reason. Oil was a factor, it was not the reason.

We invaded Iraq because we made the very bold and IMHO proper statement after 9/11 that the US was done fukcing around when it came to our national security. That when we say something or give an ultimatum by god we mean it.

We were lost after 9/11 wondering how we got to a point that this could happen and our image as a paper tiger/pushover was a huge factor. Saddam called what he thought was a bluff and there we stood before the world...do we continue with our empty threats that have emboldened our enemies or do we seize the opportunity to show them we're serious again?

Now we can argue tactics, strategy or even if we should have rebuilt them at all but the above was what it was really about. We did the right thing in taking Saddam down, the rest is certainly debatable.

In the future I would like to see us involved much much much less in world affairs like this, but the ball was rolling on this one before Bush even took office(UN resolutions).

So....we fell for the bluster? I am asking because that seems to be what happened. Was there any other viable alternative that would have allowed for a less severe approach? Did we pick the right opponent in the long run?

I am so confused.......

Hindsight is 20/20, could we have done things differently? Absolutely. I am just saying that our motivation ran much deeper than oil or WMDs.

Was part of it in anyone's opinion, somehow revenge?

I am sure there were thousands of individual motivations, but no we did not invade Iraq in any large part for Bush to avenge daddy.

Yep, remember Moammar Kadafi:D

I recall a story in Time or Newsweek, from 1994 or so, when NO ONE was thinking of GWB being a presidential candidate. It basically had GWB saying that we should have gone all the way to Baghdad in '91 and toppled Saddam. He also made a comment along the lines that leaving him in power would cause problems in the future. I really have no idea why this story has not been dredged up in the past few years (other than the fact it was pretty positive about GWB).

Len, you'll be my write in for President. On target again.

I want to expand on this as I'm sure it will be taken wrong by some.

As a country we say too much and give too many ultimatums but you start where you are.

It would have been nice if Bush had said that as well.

Failure to follow the Constitution of the United States of America.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/warandtreaty.htm
We need to return to the Constitution NOW!