Iraq: Has the inevitable Civil War begun?

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

What al-qaeda did on 9/11 was done without warning or diplomacy. It was committed against non-tactical, non-strategic, non-military targets. The purpose was to kill non-combatants, and lots of them.

I would say we were warned. WTC in 93? There were also grumblings about plane hijackings for a while before 9/11.

Diplomacy? You're right. There was none. I would guess that AQ views this as a "guerilla war" and they need to strike whenever and wherever they can. Not to mention, if ObL tried to get diplomatic with GWB, how do you think that would go pre and post 9/11? Pre 9/11, he's probably given some lip-service. After, he's killed. I don't think that was ever a legitimate option, ya know?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

What al-qaeda did on 9/11 was done without warning or diplomacy. It was committed against non-tactical, non-strategic, non-military targets. The purpose was to kill non-combatants, and lots of them.

There have been times in history when war has been waged like that, but there is no way that our invasion of Iraq (which was waged with diplomacy and with careful pains taken to reduce non-combatant casualty rates) matches up morally with the taking out of the twin towers. It's ludicrous to suggest it.

What's the difference between killing a man on the street and killing a man on the street with a gun defending his family? Why is the former unconscionable and the latter ho-hum? Inflicting casualties in aggressive wars and in defensive wars are completely different.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

What's the difference between killing a man on the street and killing a man on the street with a gun defending his family? Why is the former unconscionable and the latter ho-hum? Inflicting casualties in aggressive wars and in defensive wars are completely different.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Are you suggesting that al-qaeda is/was waging a *defensive* war?

All this talk is obscuring my main point, which is: Anybody who equates blowing up the twin towers with the invasion of Iraq on a moral scale is out of his mind. And anybody who drives around with a bumper sticker suggesting that Bush is worse than the Taliban has read way too much Chomsky.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

All this talk is obscuring my main point, which is: Anybody who equates blowing up the twin towers with the invasion of Iraq on a moral scale is out of his mind.

I think we're talking about two things here--you are making a distinction between terrorism and war based on morality. That is certainly a valid assumption to make. But, I am not talking about morality at all--I am just echoing a statement made by Mr. Bigglesworth: both terrorism and warfare are tools to further political goals. I don't see anything controversial about that statement in and of itself. Yes, you can debate the morality of either, but as I said, that's not going to prevent either war or terrorism from being used by someone who wants or needs to use it.

[Glengoyne]

You know I'm beginning to think I'm wrong about Rexall's level of education. I'm almost willing to bet now that he is tenured at the University of Colorado.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

You know I'm beginning to think I'm wrong about Rexall's level of education. I'm almost willing to bet now that he is tenured at the University of Colorado.

Four legs good, two legs baaaad.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Are you suggesting that al-qaeda is/was waging a *defensive* war?

No, I am saying that offensive wars can be just as morally questionable as terrorism. That is why the Bush administration tried to paint Iraq as a defensive war. The difference between an offensive war and terrorism is that the former is more deadly and more likely to succeed.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

You know I'm beginning to think I'm wrong about Rexall's level of education. I'm almost willing to bet now that he is tenured at the University of Colorado.

Honestly, feel free to lay out your opinion, sans personal attacks. I don't pretend to have all of the answers, and I'm always open to other points of view, even if I disagree.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

I think we're talking about two things here--you are making a distinction between terrorism and war based on morality. That is certainly a valid assumption to make. But, I am not talking about morality at all--I am just echoing a statement made by Mr. Bigglesworth: both terrorism and warfare are tools to further political goals. I don't see anything controversial about that statement in and of itself. Yes, you can debate the morality of either, but as I said, that's not going to prevent either war or terrorism from being used by someone who wants or needs to use it.

Ok, I can't disagree with that.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

I would like to know the numbers on how many attacks were foiled the past 4 years due to brave men and women who work behind the shadows.

[Arles]

I will change the direction here for a sec and go back to those who think US citizens are no safer over the past 3+ years than they were in the late 90s, early 00s. The following are the choices as to why Al Qaeda hasn't successfully attacked the US in that timeframe (given they have publically stated their intentions to do so):

1. Despite their public stance, the war on Afghanistan/Iraq has sapped their financial strength and forced them to concentrate 100% on those two areas in hopes they do not lose ground in two of their dwindling options for safe harbor. They simply do not have the money and/or manpower to launch another attack on US land.

2. They have the ability to attack the US, but given the response in Afghanistan and Iraq, Al Qaeda does not want to rally the US base and give Bush the political capital to do even more to cripple the world terrorism base they are trying to rebuild. So, in essence, they are afraid of waking the sleeping giant again and do not want to allow Bush to unite the country.

3. Al Qaeda has tried a few times to attack the US but been thwarted by the Bush administration and unsuccessful at achieveing any of their US domestic terror goals.

Regardless of which you think to be true, doesn't the fact the US has not faced any domestic terror over the past three years (combined with the known state of Al Qaeda leadership/finances) show that Bush's policies have indeed made the US safer from terror?

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by CHEMICAL SOLDIER

I would like to know the numbers on how many attacks were foiled the past 4 years due to brave men and women who work behind the shadows.

Not to mention the very bright men and women working behind desks in analytic roles supporting our intelligence apparatus. They get little respect from anybody...

[JPhillips]

Arles: You leave out an option.

4. Al Queada is currently planning another mass-casulity attack that will happen within the next five years.

There was a significant gap between the Trade Center bombing and 9/11. It is quite possible that another attack is either being planned or currently in the execution phase. We simply don't know.

What we do know is that it is ridiculous to claim that any of our actions have made it impossible for Al Queada to strike us here in the U.S. That isn't an indictment of any particular policy, its just fact. The 9/11 attacks had to cost well under a million dollars and it only took nineteen people here in the U.S. A dirty bomb or God forbid nuclear attack could be carried out by a half a dozen people and maybe a hundred-thousand dollars.

Its crazy to think that anything we have done in Afghanistan or Iraq has degraded the worldwide terrorist threat to a level where an attack is impossible. It makes for a nice political message, but we won't be able to judge the real threat of global terror for decades. That's one of the reasons the fight is so damn difficult.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Arles

Regardless of which you think to be true, doesn't the fact the US has not faced any domestic terror over the past three years (combined with the known state of Al Qaeda leadership/finances) show that Bush's policies have indeed made the US safer from terror?

How many domestic terror attacks were there in the US prior to 2001? I think the invasion of Afghanistan helped to make us safer, but I don't see how you can make the argument that invading Iraq did.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

How many domestic terror attacks were there in the US prior to 2001? I think the invasion of Afghanistan helped to make us safer, but I don't see how you can make the argument that invading Iraq did.

To be fair, Iraq had a whole lot of other issues besides state-sponsored terrorism that forced that issue.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Arles: You leave out an option.

4. Al Queada is currently planning another mass-casulity attack that will happen within the next five years.

There was a significant gap between the Trade Center bombing and 9/11. It is quite possible that another attack is either being planned or currently in the execution phase. We simply don't know.

But there wasn't that big a gap between the USS Cole incident and 9/11. And even if they are in another 5-year planning stage, there's a good chance that their leadership/funding will take yet another major hit before the plan is completed or that the situation in Iraq may force yet another change in priorities for the terrorists.

What we do know is that it is ridiculous to claim that any of our actions have made it impossible for Al Queada to strike us here in the U.S.

Where did I say it was "impossible for Al Qaeda to strike us"? I was simply stating the current facts of the situation and the fact that Al Qaeda has been unable to successfully complete any kind of terrorist act outside of Iraq over the past three years. That's certainly something many doubters would not have predicted right after 9/11.

That isn't an indictment of any particular policy, its just fact. The 9/11 attacks had to cost well under a million dollars and it only took nineteen people here in the U.S. A dirty bomb or God forbid nuclear attack could be carried out by a half a dozen people and maybe a hundred-thousand dollars.

If it's so cheap/inexpensive, why hasn't it been done? Striking the US at home would be a great way for Al Qaeda to show they are not going away - yet they haven't been successful in nearly 4 years.

Its crazy to think that anything we have done in Afghanistan or Iraq has degraded the worldwide terrorist threat to a level where an attack is impossible.

You are making some strawmen here to help strengthen a fairly weak argument. No one is saying it's impossible, but I think it's also crazy to act as if the US efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq have not significantly lowered the chance that the US gets hit again. When you look at the leadership and financial state of Al Qaeda, the loss of willingness by many nations to harbor them (primarily Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Syria) and the reality that the US has not even had a near miss attack in the states shows that Al Qaeda is becoming a shell of the terroristic force it was back in 99-01.

It makes for a nice political message, but we won't be able to judge the real threat of global terror for decades. That's one of the reasons the fight is so damn difficult.

I agree to a point. But when you put the facts of the state of Al Qaeda and its options for safe harbor with the lack of any legit attack on the US in almost 4 years, it's also hard to ignore the progress being made against that group.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

How many domestic terror attacks were there in the US prior to 2001? I think the invasion of Afghanistan helped to make us safer, but I don't see how you can make the argument that invading Iraq did.

What do you think the thousands and thousands of foreign terrorists that have been killed or captured in Iraq (or are heading there now) would be up to if the US had not taken the actions it did in Iraq?

I think it's a safe bet to assume they wouldn't be peacefully plowing fields.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Arles

What do you think the thousands and thousands of foreign terrorists that have been killed or captured in Iraq (or are heading there now) would be up to if the US had not taken the actions it did in Iraq?

I think it's a safe bet to assume they wouldn't be peacefully plowing fields.

Where would the hundreds of thousands of foreign soldiers in Iraq be if they weren't in Iraq? I don't think that you can assume that all of them would be invading another country. So I don't think you can assume that every, or even a majority, would be engaged in terrorism somewhere else. For many of them, the invasion of Iraq itself is the reason to engage in terrorism/insurgency/freedom fighting.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Arles

1. An 18-year old kid in the middle of the woods in Vietnam seeing buddies shot or wounded every day while trying to beat a massive enemy hiding in the weeds and retake their land.

2. An 18-year old kid sitting in broad daylight patrolling an area that is owned and captured by the US looking out for a few scattered terrorists that come to them maybe once ever 5-6 days.

Unmitigated Bullshit.

By Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, May 12, 2005; A01



HABAN, Iraq, May 11 -- The explosion enveloped the armored vehicle in flames, sending orange balls of fire bubbling above the trees along the Euphrates River near the Syrian border.

Marines in surrounding vehicles threw open their hatches and took off running across the plowed fields, toward the already blackening metal of the destroyed vehicle. Shouting, they pulled to safety those they could, as the flames ignited the bullets, mortar rounds, flares and grenades inside, rocketing them into the sky and across pastures.

Gunnery Sgt. Chuck Hurley emerged from the smoke and turmoil around the vehicle, circling toward the spot where helicopters would later land to pick up casualties. As he passed one group of Marines, he uttered one sentence: "That was the same squad."

Among the four Marines killed and 10 wounded when an explosive device erupted under their Amtrac on Wednesday were the last battle-ready members of a squad that four days earlier had battled foreign fighters holed up in a house in the town of Ubaydi. In that fight, two squad members were killed and five were wounded.

In 96 hours of fighting and ambushes in far western Iraq, the squad had ceased to be.

Every member of the squad -- one of three that make up the 1st Platoon of Lima Company, 3rd Battalion, 25th Regiment -- had been killed or wounded, Marines here said. All told, the 1st Platoon -- which Hurley commands -- had sustained 60 percent casualties, demolishing it as a fighting force.

"They used to call it Lucky Lima," said Maj. Steve Lawson, commander of the company. "That turned around and bit us."

Wednesday was the fourth day of fighting in far western Iraq, as the U.S. military continued an assault that has sent more than 1,000 Marines down the ungoverned north bank of the Euphrates River in search of foreign fighters crossing the border from Syria. Of seven Marines killed so far in the operation, six came come from Lima Company's 1st Platoon.

Lima Company drew Marine reservists from across Ohio into the conflict in Iraq. Some were still too young to be bothered much by shaving, or even stubble.

They rode to war on a Marine Amtrac, an armored vehicle that travels on tank-like treads. Marines in Iraq typically crowd thigh to thigh in the Amtrac, with one or two men perched on cardboard boxes of rations. Only the gunners manning the top hatches of Amtracs have any view of the passing scenery. Those inside find out what their field of combat is when the rear ramp comes down and they run out with weapons ready.

Marines typically pass travel time in the Amtrac by extracting favorite bits from ration packets, mercilessly ribbing a usual victim for eating or sleeping too much, or sleeping themselves.

On Monday, when the Marine assault on foreign fighters formally began, the young Marines of the squad from the 1st Platoon were already exhausted. Their encounter at the house in Ubaydi that morning and the previous night had been the unintended first clash of the operation, pitting them against insurgents who fired armor-piercing bullets up through the floor. It took 12 hours and five assaults by the squad -- plus grenades, bombing by an F/A-18 attack plane, tank rounds and rockets at 20 yards -- to kill the insurgents and permit recovery of the dead Marines' bodies.

Afterward, they slept in the moving Amtrac, heads back and mouths agape. One stood up to stretch his legs. He fell asleep again standing up, leaning against the metal walls.

Squad members spoke only to compare what they knew about the condition of their wounded. Getting the latest news, they fell silent again. After one such half-hour of silence, a Marine offered a terse commendation for one of the squad members shot at Ubaydi: "Bunker's a good man."

With the operation underway, Marine commanders kept the 1st Platoon largely to the back, letting its men rest.

Commanders had hoped the operation would swiftly capture or kill large numbers of foreign fighters. But the foreigners, and everyone else here, had plenty of warning that the Marines were coming -- including those ready to fight at Ubaydi.

By the time the squad from Lima Company crossed north of the Euphrates, whole villages consisted of little more than abandoned houses with fresh tire tracks leading into pastures or homes occupied only by prepubescent boys or old men. Men of fighting age had made themselves scarce. The AK-47 assault rifles ubiquitous in Iraqi households had disappeared.

Many Marines complained bitterly that commanders had pulled them out of the fight at Ubaydi while the insurgents were still battling, to start the planned offensive. "They take us from killing the people they want us to kill and bring us to these ghost villages," one complained Wednesday on the porch of a house commandeered as a temporary base.

Uneventful house searches stretched into late afternoon, the tedium broken only by small-arms fire and mortar rounds lobbed by insurgents hiding on the far side of the river.

This correspondent had just gotten off the Amtrac and the reconstructed squad from 1st Platoon was rolling toward the Euphrates in a row of armored vehicles, headed for more house searches, when the vehicle rolled over the explosive.

Marines initially said they believed the blast was caused by two mines stacked on top of each other. But reports from Marines that they had seen an artillery round and two hand-held radios near the blast site raised suspicions that the explosion was caused by a bomb that had been activated remotely, Lawson said.

Hurley and others pulled their comrades out of the Amtrac as flames detonated -- or "cooked off," in military jargon -- its ammunition. As Marines carrying stretchers ran to the Amtrac, bullets snapped out of the burning hulk and traveled hundreds of feet. The Marines ran back through the fusillade, carrying out the wounded. "C'mon, c'mon, c'mon," some shouted, desperate to get the wounded out.

The four dead were trapped inside the vehicle, Lawson said.

"We passed right over it. We passed right over it," one of many Marines in the convoy ahead of the burning Amtrac said of the explosive, puzzling over why he was still alive.

"That's the last of the squad," said another, Cpl. Craig Miller, whose reassignment last month had taken him out of the unit. "Three weeks ago, that would have been me."

Late Wednesday, helicopters flew out Hurley and the remaining members of 1st Platoon for time off. They are to return after the platoon is remade, Marines said.

Another Lima Company platoon commander ordered his men to bed early, in preparation for the next day's operations. Mourning could wait.

"We don't have time," the commander said.

[JPhillips]

Arles: You said,

They simply do not have the money and/or manpower to launch another attack on US land.

That's ridiculous. If they have six people and enough money to get to Mexico they have a good chance of pulling off some sort of attack.

You said,

But there wasn't that big a gap between the USS Cole incident and 9/11.

Well if you want to count attacks off of US soil on military targets I think Afghanistan and Iraq have had a few terrorist attacks in the past three years.

fact that Al Qaeda has been unable to successfully complete any kind of terrorist act outside of Iraq over the past three years.

Wha? Spain, Morocco, Bali, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, The Philippines, Russia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt and perhaps other countries would beg to differ.

You said,

thousands and thousands of foreign terrorists that have been killed or captured in Iraq

This is very much in doubt. Even most government sources say the overwhelming number of insurgents in Iraq are native. There has been evidence of some foriegn fighters, but you imply that they are the backbone of the insurgency and that does not seem to be true.

Now to your central question of "Are we safer from terror?" Certainly I think we are. 9/11 shocked us into dealing with a threat that had been growing since at least the eighties. Afghanistan has been central to weakening Al Queada, but I don't know if Iraq has been very beneficial to America in terms of making us safer. It still could be, but as of right now I don't see how what we have done has made me safer. It could, and I think there were other reasons to get involved besides a direct relationship to Al Queada and/or terror, but right now we are in a desperate holding action to keep the country from falling apart.

And before you attack me for being a crazy peace-monger, remember that I have stated numerous times that I could have supported an invasion of Iraq, but after Afghanistan I was convinced that the admin wasn't serious about what it would take to finish the job after the major fighting stopped.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

And before you attack me for being a crazy peace-monger, remember that I have stated numerous times that I could have supported an invasion of Iraq, but after Afghanistan I was convinced that the admin wasn't serious about what it would take to finish the job after the major fighting stopped.

How have major decentralized terrorist-insurgency's been dealt with in the past? Then we can figure out if we are on the right track or not. The reality is that this is a pretty unique situation. And to be fair, it looks like the admin isn't buckling under media and leftist scrutiny and pulling out of Iraq, they are staying and helping as promised.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

And to be fair, it looks like the admin isn't buckling under media and leftist scrutiny and pulling out of Iraq, they are staying and helping as promised.

The problem with Iraq that most people have is not that we are there now, but that we went in to begin with and didn't have an exit strategy at all. Most people (Kerry too, you'll remember) figure that we have to stay there until it stabilizes. To say everyone against Iraq just wants us to pull out right away is a straw man.

[Anthony]

i don't care if Arles is right or wrong, his view makes me feel safer. makes me feel that the last several years maybe *haven't* been such a waste.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

i don't care if Arles is right or wrong, his view makes me feel safer. makes me feel that the last several years maybe *haven't* been such a waste.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

The problem with Iraq that most people have is not that we are there now, but that we went in to begin with and didn't have an exit strategy at all. Most people (Kerry too, you'll remember) figure that we have to stay there until it stabilizes. To say everyone against Iraq just wants us to pull out right away is a straw man.

From where I sit, if Bush had left Iraq as status quo (violating the resolutions and cease fire agreement of '91) activists would be saying Bush is killing babies by supporting the UN Resolutions.

So this is a simple (yet very dangerous) partisan politics dispute. Not just by Democrats and Republicans but by Americans and Europeans. It's a power grab and both the Democrats and the Europeans lost, because the USA had every right to remove Saddam Hussein from power and they chose to fight that. Not because of the exit strategy, but for political gain.

The reality is that a majority voting block insisted that their chosen administration take care of Iraq, and that same voting block (plus) supported this admin's re-election and that's how it works.

As for the "better" way to do this, I've asked over and over and over again for the "better" way and there isn't. Nobody can do that, no reporter has done it, no Democrat has done it, not France, not Germany, not Russia. Nobody.

[JPhillips]

Dutch: How about some fucking accountability? All of the people that made terrible predictions about how post-war Iraq would be are either still in office or have been promoted. This admin holds no one accountable for anything except disloyalty. All of the people that warned the admin that we didn't have enough occupation troops, that we didn't have enough plans for post-war reconstruction, that we didn't realize how difficult establishing a government in Iraq would be were all silenced or moved out of office.

But let's look at today. For the past week we have been in major combat trying to seal the border to Syria. This same biorder has been a problem acknowledged by the administration and military for at least two years. Why the fuck are we just now trying to close the border? Its great that we are finally trying to solve the problem, but shouldn't the people who delayed this be fired?

Our post-war strategy has been disastrous. We had no plan and our officials spent more time trying to turn Iraq into a Freidmanesque paradise than they did trying to secure the country. Look at some of Bremer's biggest accomplishments. He said one of the things he was most proud of was that Iraq had a lower export tax! A lower fucking export tax? The only things he should have been worried about were the transitional government and security. Let the Iraqi's decide if they want to be the liassez faire wanderland or not. Bremer also mentioned a law that regulated what side of the road cars drove on. And Bush gave this guy a medal.

I sincerely hope that we succeed in Iraq. It is important and could change the climate in the Middle East. But this idea that nothing could have been changed or done better is complete bullshit. We know full well that the admin thought it would be easy and the transition would go smoothly when they handed Iraq over to Chalabi. Well unfortunately he's an Iranian spy. But are we doing anything about that? No, we're making one of Chalabi's biggest supporters our U.N. Ambassador.

And if I were you I'd watch citing polls as proof of your position. The latest polls say that a large majority of Americans don't believe the war was worth the costs.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Dutch: How about some fucking accountability? All of the people that made terrible predictions about how post-war Iraq would be are either still in office or have been promoted. This admin holds no one accountable for anything except disloyalty. All of the people that warned the admin that we didn't have enough occupation troops, that we didn't have enough plans for post-war reconstruction, that we didn't realize how difficult establishing a government in Iraq would be were all silenced or moved out of office.

Everybody said this wasn't going to be easy and would take a long time.

But let's look at today. For the past week we have been in major combat trying to seal the border to Syria. This same biorder has been a problem acknowledged by the administration and military for at least two years. Why the fuck are we just now trying to close the border? Its great that we are finally trying to solve the problem, but shouldn't the people who delayed this be fired?

We can't just go blowing up everything because we don't know which one's are the bad guys. The terror-insurgency definately has the upper hand in the blowing things up department. We knew the terrorists were being supplied from across borders, but didn't know exactly where. The capture of this Al Qaeda #3 guy gave way to a lot of information that led the US to this particular location for Operation Matador.

Our post-war strategy has been disastrous. We had no plan and our officials spent more time trying to turn Iraq into a Freidmanesque paradise than they did trying to secure the country. Look at some of Bremer's biggest accomplishments. He said one of the things he was most proud of was that Iraq had a lower export tax! A lower fucking export tax? The only things he should have been worried about were the transitional government and security. Let the Iraqi's decide if they want to be the liassez faire wanderland or not. Bremer also mentioned a law that regulated what side of the road cars drove on. And Bush gave this guy a medal.

I have been completely misinformed on what Bremer was working on all that time.

I sincerely hope that we succeed in Iraq. It is important and could change the climate in the Middle East. But this idea that nothing could have been changed or done better is complete bullshit. We know full well that the admin thought it would be easy and the transition would go smoothly when they handed Iraq over to Chalabi. Well unfortunately he's an Iranian spy. But are we doing anything about that? No, we're making one of Chalabi's biggest supporters our U.N. Ambassador.

Chalabi was a big-time error and we are continuing to pay the price for that. If we wanted real intelligence on the Baath Party and the Republican Guard, we should have hired some Baath Party members and Republican Guard members to get us information, but we are no longer allowed to work with the enemy at any level. At least before the intel reform that is being worked on now. The biggest fault we had with Iraq was not finding the whereabouts of the WMD's that were inventoried by the UN. I thought for sure that was information that was at hand. I was wrong.

But I will contend that the Admin has never stated this would be easy.

And if I were you I'd watch citing polls as proof of your position. The latest polls say that a large majority of Americans don't believe the war was worth the costs.

I agree at this moment in time it is not the numbers I would like to see.

[JPhillips]

Dutch: No, everyone didn't say it would take a long time. Remember Shinseki? Wolfowitz said he was wildly off the mark on an estimate of 200,000 troops for post-war Iraq. It was either Wolfowitz or Pearl who said that the whole Iraq operation wouldn't cost U.S. tax payers even 100 billion dollars.

but let's look at what was said.

Richard Pearl: "But it's a house of cards. He rules by fear because he knows there is no
underlying support. Support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse at the first whiff of gunpowder. "

Former U.N. ambassodr and Rumsfeld confidant Ken Adelman: "I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. Let me give simple, responsible reasons: (1) It was a cakewalk last time; (2) they've become much weaker; (3) we've become much stronger;
and (4) now we're playing for keeps.

Dick Cheney: "The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but that they want to get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the
United States when we come to do that."

Wolfowitz: "It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would to take to conduct the war itself and secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army. Hard to imagine."

Now I don't think there was some evil plan hatched to lie to the American public, but I also think the record is clear that the problems in post-war Iraq have largely caught the admin off-guard. They honestly believed everything would work out because that's what Chalabi kept telling them. They wanted to believe that Iraq could become an Isreal-friendly Arab country with little expense in either treasure or lives. It hasn't worked that way and someone should be held responsible for this massive mistake.

[NoMyths]

Good post, JPhillips. It's...dismaying...that the rhetoric constantly changes, and yet there seems to be such a short memory span for what was previously said.

[Dutch]

Bringing stability and unity to a free Iraq will not be easy. Yet that is no excuse to leave the Iraqi regime's torture chambers and poison labs in operation. Any future the Iraqi people choose for themselves will be better than the nightmare world that Saddam Hussein has chosen for them.

- President Bush, Feb 2003
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030226-11.html

Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including our own: we will remain in Iraq as long as necessary, and not a day more. America has made and kept this kind of commitment before -- in the peace that followed a world war. After defeating enemies, we did not leave behind occupying armies, we left constitutions and parliaments.

- President Bush, Feb 2003
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030226-11.html

Much is asked of America in this year 2003. The work ahead is demanding. It will be difficult to help freedom take hold in a country that has known three decades of dictatorship, secret police, internal divisions, and war. It will be difficult to cultivate liberty and peace in the Middle East, after so many generations of strife. Yet, the security of our nation and the hope of millions depend on us, and Americans do not turn away from duties because they are hard. We have met great tests in other times, and we will meet the tests of our time.

- President Bush, Feb 2003
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030226-11.html

We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We've begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We're helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people. (Applause.)

The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq. (Applause.)

The war on terror is not over; yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide. No act of the terrorists will change our purpose, or weaken our resolve, or alter their fate. Their cause is lost. Free nations will press on to victory. (Applause.)

- President Bush aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln (of infamous "Mission Accomplished" notoriety)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030501-15.html

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

So this is a simple (yet very dangerous) partisan politics dispute.

Well if you still see the disagreement as simple partisan politics, I feel that any further discussion is futile.

Originally Posted by Dutch

As for the "better" way to do this, I've asked over and over and over again for the "better" way and there isn't. Nobody can do that, no reporter has done it, no Democrat has done it, not France, not Germany, not Russia. Nobody.

I mean really, and, c'mon, not one person has come up with a better way to do anything? That is, I'm sure, the meme being pushed by such places as Rush and Power Line, but it has no place in reality. People from the beginning have said: we need more troops in theatre for the occupation, Saddam might not have any WMD's, the Iraqi military shouldn't have been dismantled, open contract bidding to non-coalition companies, etc. Just as the White House message is that nobody else has any ideas for social security, their message is that nobody has any other ideas about Iraq. They just don't listen to any ideas.

[Klinglerware]

The events on the ground have proven Eric Shinseki right--his estimate for the size of an effective occupying force, while a bit more conservative, ended up being closer to real life than the estimate given by the civilians in the DoD. I don't think arguing the numbers is really of much significance at this point, but I do find it unfortunate that Shinseki's career and good reputation (via smear campaign) came to an end over this...

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I mean really, and, c'mon, not one person has come up with a better way to do anything? That is, I'm sure, the meme being pushed by such places as Rush and Power Line, but it has no place in reality. People from the beginning have said: we need more troops in theatre for the occupation, Saddam might not have any WMD's, the Iraqi military shouldn't have been dismantled, open contract bidding to non-coalition companies, etc. Just as the White House message is that nobody else has any ideas for social security, their message is that nobody has any other ideas about Iraq. They just don't listen to any ideas.

I've previously given a scenario where I pull 250,000 brand new fresh US troops out of my "magic bag". They are free, it won't cost a dime, we don't have to feed them or train them. Where do you put them? The bottom line is there is no answer because we are not fighting an insurgency. We are fighting an underground terror-insurgency. A classic conventional addition of troops doesn't work here and in many times in classic conventional warfare, having too many troops in one spot could lead to all kinds of communication blunders and more friendly fire incidents.

The question about WMD remains the same. Nobody knows what Saddam Hussein did with them, but at last count by the UN, they had a ton of crap there. Iraq never accounted for it to the UN and claimed we blew it all up in Operation Desert Fox just after the inspectors were kicked out. What steps did President Clinton take to resolve the situation? He strengthened the argument by calling for regime change in Iraq.

The Iraqi military dissapeared. Most of it's leaders went into hiding. Yes, we could have tried to stage a TV presence by putting a bunch of under-trained soldiers in uniform and paraded them around like they were pro-Democracy. But it would not have worked. It hardly worked the first 15 months after the war with new recruits. But a lot of those recruits are slowly turning into veterans and are of proper training and mind. The military in Iraq had to be rebuilt from scratch and I think it's long-term affects are far outweighing the short term gain of that argument. What do you do with 100,000 Iraqi's when they turn out to be worthless? You can't go back and retrain them...that could cause it's own revolt. As time goes on, not bringing the Iraqi military back is proving to be a smart decision.

Open contract bidding to non-coalition countries? You mean like France and Russia? Please don't ever be a politician for my country! These two particular nations had extremely lucrative oil and military contracts already set up and in place. The only stumbling block in their way was the tricky task of removing UN Sanctions.

That's the part a lot of people don't see, but the UN Sanctions were going to come under fire had we left the "status quo" in place under President Bush. The French and Russians and Germans wanted those sanctions gone, because afterall, the Iraqi threat wasn't to Europeans, it was to Jews and Americans. Two groups that European nationalism historically has shown absolutley no love towards.

Our plan isn't perfect, because nobody is throwing roses at our soldiers, but it's not nearly as bad as the media potrays it.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Good post, JPhillips. It's...dismaying...that the rhetoric constantly changes, and yet there seems to be such a short memory span for what was previously said.

Oops.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I've previously given a scenario where I pull 250,000 brand new fresh US troops out of my "magic bag". They are free, it won't cost a dime, we don't have to feed them or train them. Where do you put them? The bottom line is there is no answer because we are not fighting an insurgency. We are fighting an underground terror-insurgency. A classic conventional addition of troops doesn't work here and in many times in classic conventional warfare, having too many troops in one spot could lead to all kinds of communication blunders and more friendly fire incidents.

You are assuiming that the problem is not enough troops. That was definitely a huge problem during the invasion, what with not being able to guard the ammo dumps that the insurgency are now using to attack our troops. The problem right now I think is inept management. Infrastructure is terrible, billions of dollars are missing, Iraqis were/are being tortured.

Originally Posted by Dutch

The question about WMD remains the same. Nobody knows what Saddam Hussein did with them, but at last count by the UN, they had a ton of crap there. Iraq never accounted for it to the UN and claimed we blew it all up in Operation Desert Fox just after the inspectors were kicked out. What steps did President Clinton take to resolve the situation? He strengthened the argument by calling for regime change in Iraq.

The Iraqi military dissapeared. Most of it's leaders went into hiding. Yes, we could have tried to stage a TV presence by putting a bunch of under-trained soldiers in uniform and paraded them around like they were pro-Democracy. But it would not have worked. It hardly worked the first 15 months after the war with new recruits. But a lot of those recruits are slowly turning into veterans and are of proper training and mind. The military in Iraq had to be rebuilt from scratch and I think it's long-term affects are far outweighing the short term gain of that argument. What do you do with 100,000 Iraqi's when they turn out to be worthless? You can't go back and retrain them...that could cause it's own revolt. As time goes on, not bringing the Iraqi military back is proving to be a smart decision.

Open contract bidding to non-coalition countries? You mean like France and Russia? Please don't ever be a politician for my country! These two particular nations had extremely lucrative oil and military contracts already set up and in place. The only stumbling block in their way was the tricky task of removing UN Sanctions.

Reasonable people can disagree on the effectiveness of the other ideas (and I disagree with a lot of what you said), but to suggest that they don't exist and then to argue against them is completely irrational doublethink. The facts are that things are not going well over there, and that the people in charge are praised or promoted.

[JPhillips]

Dutch: I never saw your 250,000 troop mega-challenge, but let me take a shot. And for the record, I completely understand that adding 250,000 troops can't happen without a draft.

First I'll assume that like the current troops at least half are support troops. That leaves 125,00 combat soldiers. With half of those I put them on the Syrian border. Like I said earlier, we have known the Syrian border is a problem forr years and haven't done anything about it. This puts out border patrols. It won't stop everything, but it will make it a hell of a lot harder to sneak in people/material. And if it makes the Syrians nervous, so much the better.

The other half goes into occupation duty with our other soldiers. We simply don't have enough people on the ground to police the entire country. If only half of our force is combat and only a thrid to half are working at one time, that isn't enough to pacify the country. It will get better as more Iraqis take over, but more boots on the ground will help, at least with the Sunni insurgency.

But the 250,000 troops idea is silly, because we don't have them and aren't going to get them. Rumsfeld even refuses to agree that the standing army is too small given the commitments we have. So that leaves us with far less options.

1. Accountability. If people know their choices matter I believe you are more likely to get choices that work. We don't have to hang anyone who makes any mistake, but wrong assumptions and ineffective leadership should get you fired.

2. Simply admit that things aren't/haven't gone well. I value leadership that can solve problems and isn't bound by plans that have proven to not work. I would have much more respect for Bush if he said something along the lines of "The intelligence I recieved before Iraq was wrong and that is a disgrace. We can not base our national defence on false presumptions. I am going to do everything possible to make sure this never happens again."

3. Get out of internal Iraqi politics. We made a bunch of laws during the CPA era that we should have left to Iraqis. They should be given complete freedom to set most internal laws. The laws set by the CPA should be reviewed by the Iraqi government with our encouragement. We had too many Heritage Institute thinkers trying to make Iraq into the dream of Milton Friedman.

4. Aggressively punish corruption and misuse of funds. At least nine billion dollars is missing in Iraq and the admin has done nothing to ensure America that the money sent there will be well accounted.

5. Be honest about our future commitments. This "until needed and not one day longer" crap needs to go. I don't think anyone with any sense thinks we have less than two years ahead of us with major forces in Iraq. Given the slow pace of setting up the government, its safe to assume the constitutional process will take longer than anticipated. Be upfront with the American people about what our level of commitment is going to be. You don't have to set an exit date, but you should give some sense of the timeline that is being predicted.

6. Stop giving medals to fuckups. This would just make me happy.

7. Get more Iraqis doing the work of private contractors. We're paying a lot of money to Americans that are doing such things as driving trucks. As more Iraqis are tied economically to the new government it will get more stable. Gen. Zinni suggested an international summit on the economic future of Iraq. Lets do it.

As to mistakes in the past. There were many and you refuse to ackowledge them. There isn't any point in retreading that ground.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Dutch: I never saw your 250,000 troop mega-challenge, but let me take a shot. And for the record, I completely understand that adding 250,000 troops can't happen without a draft.

First I'll assume that like the current troops at least half are support troops. That leaves 125,00 combat soldiers. With half of those I put them on the Syrian border. Like I said earlier, we have known the Syrian border is a problem forr years and haven't done anything about it. This puts out border patrols. It won't stop everything, but it will make it a hell of a lot harder to sneak in people/material. And if it makes the Syrians nervous, so much the better.

The other half goes into occupation duty with our other soldiers. We simply don't have enough people on the ground to police the entire country. If only half of our force is combat and only a thrid to half are working at one time, that isn't enough to pacify the country. It will get better as more Iraqis take over, but more boots on the ground will help, at least with the Sunni insurgency.

But the 250,000 troops idea is silly, because we don't have them and aren't going to get them. Rumsfeld even refuses to agree that the standing army is too small given the commitments we have. So that leaves us with far less options.

Exactly my point. If Bush had these troops at his disposal and utilized them as such, it would have been media field day. The reality is that these troops would have come at the cost of our reserve units that are in place now and we would have lasted about one-year before we realized we had absolutely no reserve left to move guys in and out of theater like we currently have the luxury of doing. And the current situation has been a media field day with people going to Iraq for one year tours.

Point: The troop levels are not only doing the job, they are as large as realistically possible without having an actual opposing military to fight.

1. Accountability. If people know their choices matter I believe you are more likely to get choices that work. We don't have to hang anyone who makes any mistake, but wrong assumptions and ineffective leadership should get you fired.

I think that is fair. FWIW, Every intelligence director has effictively been demoted to the #2 guy with the Intel Reform Bill that passed in Dec 04. The General in charge of Abu Graib was reduced to Colonel and forced to retire. It's not like the people that are screwing up aren't being punished. But they are losing their old positions of leadership.

2. Simply admit that things aren't/haven't gone well. I value leadership that can solve problems and isn't bound by plans that have proven to not work. I would have much more respect for Bush if he said something along the lines of "The intelligence I recieved before Iraq was wrong and that is a disgrace. We can not base our national defence on false presumptions. I am going to do everything possible to make sure this never happens again."

Doesn't the intel reform bill mean exactly that? You have to understand that no President is ever going to say things in hopes it will please the media or the opposition. Because there is no mercy. You know that. If the President says, "I made a mistake..." here or here....then it is instant political suicide. So he acts to correct errors in Intelligence (for instance) by reforming the system.

3. Get out of internal Iraqi politics. We made a bunch of laws during the CPA era that we should have left to Iraqis. They should be given complete freedom to set most internal laws. The laws set by the CPA should be reviewed by the Iraqi government with our encouragement. We had too many Heritage Institute thinkers trying to make Iraq into the dream of Milton Friedman.

I'm not sure what laws you are referring to. If they are laws specifically designed to ensure dictator's don't take over the country and keep the power seperated among the different groups. I agree. We promised that Iraq would be free, but also that Iraq would not just be replaced with another Despotism. That's as far into the government that I have treaded anyway.

4. Aggressively punish corruption and misuse of funds. At least nine billion dollars is missing in Iraq and the admin has done nothing to ensure America that the money sent there will be well accounted.

I am not sure where that money is either. If it's been stolen, somebody needs to pay. If it's been wasted or abused, somebody needs to pay. It has to have a clear purpose and if there is abuse, whomever is responsible needs to be punished. I agree.

5. Be honest about our future commitments. This "until needed and not one day longer" crap needs to go. I don't think anyone with any sense thinks we have less than two years ahead of us with major forces in Iraq. Given the slow pace of setting up the government, its safe to assume the constitutional process will take longer than anticipated. Be upfront with the American people about what our level of commitment is going to be. You don't have to set an exit date, but you should give some sense of the timeline that is being predicted.

I disagree with the requirements of a timeline. I would love to think it would be beneficial to have one, but I think it would have a negative impact.

6. Stop giving medals to fuckups. This would just make me happy.

I'm not sure what that was in response to. Bremer? But I've seen people get medals for goofy shit. It was rumored that the general officer in charge of the Army forward task force (whom I supported directly in our bid to prepare to go into Iraq through No. Turkey) gave *himself* a bronze star. What's up with that?

7. Get more Iraqis doing the work of private contractors. We're paying a lot of money to Americans that are doing such things as driving trucks. As more Iraqis are tied economically to the new government it will get more stable. Gen. Zinni suggested an international summit on the economic future of Iraq. Lets do it.

I think the Iraqi's need to be given as many jobs as possible. As stated here on these boards, one of the biggest challenges for Iraq is creating jobs. After the oil industry, there aren't a whole lot of lucrative jobs to give these people. Jobs make people content more than anything else. So again, I agree 100%. The more they are working towards their own goals, the better off they will be. I believe we are progressing in that area, and I hope we only speed up the process if we don't lose traction in the quality of the work being done.

As to mistakes in the past. There were many and you refuse to ackowledge them. There isn't any point in retreading that ground.

I do acknowledge mistakes when I see them. But I am not so unrealistic as to think that a massive exploration into the unknown (providing democracy to a part of the world that has so far rejected democracy) could possibly be done perfectly. This is not perfect, but I think it's much better than the opposition makes it out to be.

I know we will continue to disagree on many things, but I will continue to provide positive support to our troops and leadership as long as I feel they are acting in my best interest. And I know you will continue to dog them when they are not acting in yours. That's America. But the bottom line is we live in a country that we get to grade our leaders every four years. It's a beautiful deal relatively speaking. You say we are failing, I say we are overcoming a challenging obstacle. We'll see whose right in the end. I hope it's me.

[JPhillips]

Honestly Dutch, I hope its you as well. I don't wish failure on the troops or the country, but I see an admin that is blinded by their assumptions and isn't willing to change course as circumstances change.

Anyway, I do think we found a lot of common ground. As I've said before, while I'm a proud Democrat, I really come from the FDR/Truman legacy. I'm fairly hawkish about using the military to better the world.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

Do you want to compare WWI deaths to WWII deaths?

I do believe that you were the one who first mentioned it looking like Vietnam. All that bringing up these statistics do is show how minor, and bloodless, war this is.

That is not to say that the loss of life in Iraq is not tragic, but when compared to other conflicts we have paid very little for potentially great payoff.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Arles: You leave out an option.

4. Al Queada is currently planning another mass-casulity attack that will happen within the next five years.

There was a significant gap between the Trade Center bombing and 9/11. It is quite possible that another attack is either being planned or currently in the execution phase. We simply don't know.

What we do know is that it is ridiculous to claim that any of our actions have made it impossible for Al Queada to strike us here in the U.S. That isn't an indictment of any particular policy, its just fact. The 9/11 attacks had to cost well under a million dollars and it only took nineteen people here in the U.S. A dirty bomb or God forbid nuclear attack could be carried out by a half a dozen people and maybe a hundred-thousand dollars.

Its crazy to think that anything we have done in Afghanistan or Iraq has degraded the worldwide terrorist threat to a level where an attack is impossible. It makes for a nice political message, but we won't be able to judge the real threat of global terror for decades. That's one of the reasons the fight is so damn difficult.

While you might be right about option 4, Al Qaeda launched numerous attacks against the US between 1993 and 9/11, embassy bombings and the USS Cole attacks come immediately to mind.

It is impossible to completely irradicate terrorism, but we can seek to stifle the growth of the terrorist movement. One way to do this is to export democracy. How many pure wars of aggression have democratic governments embarked upon?

However, what we really need to do, is get mainstream Muslim Imams to denounce the terrorists. I have yet to see any major Muslim leaders repeatedly denounce the terrorist movement.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I do believe that you were the one who first mentioned it looking like Vietnam. All that bringing up these statistics do is show how minor, and bloodless, war this is.

Tell that to the dead soldiers' families and to the orphaned and maimed Iraqis.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Democracy is allowed to have a strong central government just like Saddam Hussein's dictatorship had. So civil war can be averted. It will take a while for it to work, it took America what? 13 years before we got it figured out? And now there's a few more blueprints to follow. The Turks are a pretty good example from a neighboring perspective.

I see this (large bombing spree) as the end of a fireworks show as the terrorists pop off as many headline grabbing articles as they can to drown out the less sensational news of Iraq's new government.

I don't know how long it will last, but signs are good that the US and Iraqi forces are cracking down with greater ease these days than just a week or two ago against terrorists and insurgents. And it is beginning to look like a large majority of Iraqi's are slowing realizing that the American presense isn't actually the Apocalypse but a better deal than what the terrorists are offering them.

Can we revisit this now?

[st.cronin]

Not sure what impact this will have, but Iran's president is accusing Israel of attacking the Askariya Shrine. What a totally loopy, batshit region. I'm seriously starting to think that the answer might just be to subjogate the entire region, raise the American flag over Mecca.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

Can we revisit this now?

I can't say shit following that violence. I thought we would get the terrorists to stop killing so many people with their IED's. I honestly thought we would get it done by now to be honest (at least not have it look like it was boiling over like it is). 111 people died in Iraq in sectarian warfare. Puff your chest out, don't hold back that big grin, and pat yourself on the back. Your not wrong yet, congratulations. And your suggestion now? Are you asking me if we should quit and abandon Iraq?

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I can't say shit following that violence. I thought we would get the terrorists to stop killing so many people with their IED's. I honestly thought we would get it done by now to be honest (at least not have it look like it was boiling over like it is). 111 people died in Iraq in sectarian warfare. Puff your chest out, don't hold back that big grin, and pat yourself on the back. Your not wrong yet, congratulations. And your suggestion now? Are you asking me if we should quit and abandon Iraq?

Dutch, thinking something can/will happen is not the same as rooting for something to happen, or being happy if something like this happens. Please don't confuse the two.

Personally, I thought something like this was inevitable, just by virtue of taking our Saddam. I don't think any reasonable number or troops or military forces could stop this from happening.

As far as asking you if we should "quit" or "abandon" Iraq, that's not for me to judge. I just think that there were a lot of very naive people in Washington if they didn't forsee this.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I'm seriously starting to think that the answer might just be to subjogate the entire region, raise the American flag over Mecca.

You're not ever going to get me to take you seriously as long as you express yourself like that.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

You're not ever going to get me to take you seriously as long as you express yourself like that.

I agree that it sounds crazy. But I haven't heard anybody suggest a better idea. Mostly the ideas are 'wait for something to blow up, and then we'll decide.'

I know it's impolitic to say so, but it's pretty obvious that most, if not all, of that region is not remotelyl capable of ruling itself.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

Dutch, thinking something can/will happen is not the same as rooting for something to happen, or being happy if something like this happens. Please don't confuse the two.

The reason you bumped this thread was quite clear.

Personally, I thought something like this was inevitable, just by virtue of taking our Saddam. I don't think any reasonable number or troops or military forces could stop this from happening.

We all thought something like this was inevitable. (terror bombings against civlians and ambushing troops). What we don't know, and still don't know, is how long it will last. It's possible it can last a long time. But the mission remains unchanged. Progress still moves forward. Stand up the Iraqi Military so that we can stand down. That will take a long time, and these Iraqi troops need experience. Well, lucky them, they are getting it. How long does it take to stand up a foreign army so they can fight terrorism in a land that have never had Democracy? Nobody knows the answer, but progress on that front continues to be made.

Helping Iraq prevent a civil war isn't easy, but it's possible, and I think the media is fanning the flames of civil war talk because of the recent violence. It can happen that Iraq can quell the terrorists. But I don't believe that abandoning Iraq is the right answer.

As far as asking you if we should "quit" or "abandon" Iraq, that's not for me to judge. I just think that there were a lot of very naive people in Washington if they didn't forsee this.

It's not for you to judge? I'm just asking for your opinion, not a change in policy. You have an opinion, share it. You bumped the thread, afterall.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I know it's impolitic to say so, but it's pretty obvious that most, if not all, of that region is not remotelyl capable of ruling itself.

Seriously, what the heck are you talking about? Who is not capable of ruling themselves? What makes them not capable of ruling themselves?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Seriously, what the heck are you talking about? Who is not capable of ruling themselves? What makes them not capable of ruling themselves?

Iran elected a president who is either completely insane or else incredibly, unbelievably, cartoonishly malicious. If that's the best they can come up with, I'm tempted to think the franchise ought to be pulled. To heck with sovereignty.