Did we win in Iraq? Does Bush get credit?

[egslim]

If they're a free country, why does the EU demand liberal reforms? I can't say I'm familiar with Turkey, but maybe it isn't exactly a beacon of freedom?

The EU has, if I recall correctly, about 80,000 pages of rules and regulations any (prospective) member must absorb. The fact that Turkey is even considered as a prospective member demonstrates the country is already quite close to the ideal of a free, secular democracy.

Why would they do that?

Because the majority of Iraqis roots for the Palestines, in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, much like the majority of Americans roots for the Israelis. It's a matter of rooting for the group you identify closest with, culturally or religiously.

The Iraqi parliament lifted the immunity of Sunni MP Mithal Alusi on Sunday for visiting Israel last week to attend an international conference on terrorism.

Parliament voted to ban Alusi from travelling outside Iraq or attending its sessions, and to ask prosecutors to press charges against him for visiting the Jewish state.

The action against Alusi, the sole member of his own parliamentary faction, was agreed by acclamation.

In all seriousness, I started thinking about contries that I would consider free. Without question it includes most of Europe, Japan, Canada. Mexico and some of South America are marginal. I think India's pretty good. Australia is fine. I'm not sure about others. I'm sure I could look up Amnesty International data, or other areas that rate countries on freedom.

Then, I asked myself, which of these countries have every done anything to hurt the US or its interests? I couldn't think of any. I'm sure somewhere along the line Denmark has done something that someone in our government wishes they hadn't, but, for the most part, free countries don't do nasty things to other free countries.

As I said above, it's a matter of rooting for those you identify closest with. With the exception of India and Japan all countries you mention are either European, or have a majority population from European descent.

Japan is still generally disliked in Asia, so it is pretty much stuck with the US. And during the Cold War India was much closer to the USSR, actually fought against US-backed Pakistan.

Which is why majority Shiite Iraq has developed close relations with Shiite Iran, despite US-Iranian tensions. A truly free Iraq may criticize human rights violations in Iran, but will still offer (passive) support for Iran against the US, because it shares much more cultural and religious similarities with Iran.

 

[Cicero]

When hideous slaughters take place, I'd rather it wasn't my country doing the slaughtering. We could try to prevent the killing fields, but if it means more killing than the killing fields, that it sort of back-fires.

GWB has killed more people in Iraq than Sadam. That's some hard love.

I was drafted in 1968. But I was biased against violent confrontation from much earlier. I am also guilty of mistrusting GWB. And Nixon. And Reagan.

But not JFK, who was committed to staying in Southeast Asia and had Diem assassinated, or LBJ, whose incompetent micromanaging of the war was disastrous for American forces?

You prefer the failed attempted violent confrontations of Carter that ended in disaster in the Iranian dessert?

I wonder why you do not include Clinton on your list of Presidents doing the slaughtering in your name? How many Somalis did U.S. Rangers kill in the name of "love?"

 

[godless dave]

I was cautiously optimistic in 2003 when the Iraq War began. I'm not much of a fan of war, unless you count as a subject for movies and games. The real variety are very depressing. However, I'm a big fan of democracy, and I saw an opportunity to take a dictatorship and create a democracy.

Via war. Nice.

Even if Bush gets the credit, it's nothing to be proud of. William McKinley gets the credit for winning the Philippine-American war, and that's one of the reasons we consider him a douchebag today.

 

[Cicero]

You do realise the US continues to consider South Ossetia part of Georgia?
When the US demanded Russia leave Georgia, that specifically included they leave South Ossetia.
Yet South Ossetia continues to have a Russian military presence, and is now basically a Russian protectorate.


What's your point?

Either way, the US made and continues to make a lot of noise telling Iran what it should do, with so far very little to show for it in Iran actually suspending anything.


Perseverence is nice, results are better.

What country other than Russia recognizes South Ossetia's independence?

http://naviny.by/rubrics/inter/2009/02/02/ic_articles_259_161029/

You said that it is the U.S. that makes "noises" about Iran remaining nuclear free. The "noise" came from the U.N. Security Council. That would be the point.

If you have a secret plan to capture OBL please share. I'm sure the U.S. intelligence agencies would welcome your insight.

 

[quarky]

But not JFK, who was committed to staying in Southeast Asia and had Diem assassinated, or LBJ, whose incompetent micromanaging of the war was disastrous for American forces?

You prefer the failed attempted violent confrontations of Carter that ended in disaster in the Iranian dessert?

I wonder why you do not include Clinton on your list of Presidents doing the slaughtering in your name? How many Somalis did U.S. Rangers kill in the name of "love?"

That was bait. I don't see much difference between dems and 'pubs. Sometimes, its just luck if they manage to dodge a big war.Though I think GWB was in his own league, as far as being pro-war.

 

[gumboot]

GWB has killed more people in Iraq than Sadam. That's some hard love.

No he hasn't. Even using the ridiculous Lancet figures, Saddam still comes first, easily.

And if you factor in refugees and displaced persons Saddam pushes even further ahead.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

This is an interesting subject. I think it's a bit of a litmus test for political indoctrination.

Currently it appears we have won. It could go bad again. But for now, it looks good, and of course Bush deserves credit. I have no doubt that if we had lost there that he would get 100% of the blame.

In hindsight of course it looks like it was a bad idea to enter that war. And things went very bad for a while. But in the end, Bush put the right people in place and supported them with a good plan to clean things up. And he always fully supported the troops.

Anyone who is unwilling to admit (even if begrudgingly) that Bush deserves credit is demonstrating an inability to give praise where praise is due, simply based on political disagreement or intolerance.

There were a number of peple who thought the war was a bad idea in foresight, but they just got drowned out.

Winning the war doesn't mean you were right, it just means that you were stronger.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

This is the first thread I've seen where people are genuinely ignoring the nutty opinions (I won't say who is being nutty). I may cry...I think the internet just matured some.

 

[gumboot]

Here's my take on it...

Currently, I am firmly optimistic that Iraq is actually going to work out. I think the data indicates a huge drop in violence, and the Iraqi people appear to be increasingly optimistic about their future.

Not many people are aware that Iraq had provincial elections in January this year. They were entirely run by Iraq, and there was not a single incident of violence on election day. Over 14,000 candidates stood for 440 seats, and 25% of those who were elected are women.

This was a landmark event in Iraq's history, and it saddens me that it was so overlooked by the media, whose only message is doom and gloom.

Iraq's security forces are increasing daily, and the constant attacks on police and army recruits has not stopped people volunteering. They continue to take over complete control of more and more areas of the country.

I am quite confident that Iraq will become a genuine, free, democracy. I don't think it will be a liberal western democracy - the majority of citizens are Muslims and I think their governments will reflect that.

Does that makes everything okay?

No, it doesn't. The invasion was still a bad idea. It should not have happened. Whether the war turns out positively for Iraqis or not is irrelevant; Bush was in the wrong.

 

[Polaris]

Clearly we have a glass-half-full situation where both sides can look at it and declare it either a victory or a defeat with some justification.

That's because it's too soon to really tell. I'm optimistic because things are getting better. That doesn't mean they will stay that way if we leave, or even if we (God forbid) stay.

I would have rather defeated al Qaeda in Afghanistan than in Iraq, where they didn't exist before we invaded.

I'll agree with you on destroying AQ in Afghanistan, though that most likely would have led to a wider war on the ground inside Pakistan (and still may). But there was al-Qaeda in Iraq before the US invasion: Zarqawi. And this wasn't just a guy who was laying low there (with the apparent complicity of Saddam Hussein), this was a guy who was behind the assassination of the US Ambassador to Jordan, and bombings in Casablanca and Istanbul.

If we invade Switzerland and after we invade "al Qaeda in Switzerland" forms as a result of our invasion, and we mostly defeat "al Qaeda in Switzerland," is that a victory?

Apples and oranges. Switzerland in 2003 was not a rogue state on the verge of becoming a failed state run by a genocidal dictator upon whose death would have become an unmitigated disaster - probably divided up between Iran, Syria and Turkey, and/or an eventual destination for al-Qaeda anyway. I'm not defending the way things were handled, because God only knows mistakes were made, but considering Iraq a few decades at most down the line without the invasion is a nightmare.

 

[Dr Adequate]

As far as other countries coming here to free us, Gen. Washington had the services of the German, Frederick William, baron von Steuben to train his troops at Valley Forge.

If it wasn't for the Germans, you guys would all be speaking English.

Of course in 1778, France assisted the Continental Army in defeating the British. We killed the British to be free. This had to be done again in 1812.

Oh rubbish. You didn't fight the War of 1812 to be free, you fought it to be annoying.

 

[Cicero]

If it wasn't for the Germans, you guys would all be speaking English.

Oh rubbish. You didn't fight the War of 1812 to be free, you fought it to be annoying.

'England and America are two countries separated by a common language.'
George Bernard Shaw

When you steal, at least you steal from the best.

If it wasn't for the Yanks, Albert Speer would have redecorated London after Werner Von Braun demolished it.

 

[Meadmaker]

Does that makes everything okay?

No, it doesn't. The invasion was still a bad idea. It should not have happened. Whether the war turns out positively for Iraqis or not is irrelevant; Bush was in the wrong.

Fair enough, but why? Does your opinion come from pacifist beliefs, that no war should ever be started? Or does it come from selfish beliefs, that no matter how good things go, we don't get anything from it, so we shouldn't have done it? Is it because you think the outcome (a free democracy in Iraq) could have been achieved through other, less destructive means? Is it some other reason?

 

[Skeptic Guy]

Speaking for myself, I don't think a preemptive war is something we should fight.

If the reason for the war was ostensibly because they had WMD, then I disagree that that was sufficient reason to go to war. A lot of countries have WMD and don't like the U.S., but we aren't seeking to invade them. If the country attacks us, then that would be reason to go to war, but until then we should stick to diplomatic solutions.

If the purpose of the war was to promote democracy, as our government tried to claim after the WMD justification fell apart, then that's just stupid. Democracy does not come at the point of a gun, it comes from within. We have only gotten close to this goal after much loss of blood, treasure, and reputation and even now, we are not assured that the democracy will continue.

If our goal for the region was to make it stable and U.S.-friendly so as not to allow terrorist groups and governments hostile to the US to gain a foot-hold there and threaten our interests, we have, to date, failed miserably.

Whether there's democracy in Iraq or not has nothing to do with it, IMO.

 

[BeAChooser]

Dahr Jamail is just back from Iraq.

Like Texas said, it comes down to a source that you believe more than others. So if you choose to believe Darh Jamail, who is viralently anti-American, ...

 

[BeAChooser]

Bush gets no credit from Iraqis. The guy who threw the shoes at him is a national hero.

Actually, Tricky, the fact that an Iraqi could throw several shoes at a visiting national leader who was standing beside an Iraqi president and not be summarily shot by that president's government is a testament to how much things have changed because of Bush and our military.

 

[BeAChooser]

I wonder what would happen if a taxpayer threw a shoe at Obama?

I'm more curious why this woman didn't become a national hero:

http://www.dailyrepublican.com/clintoninsulted.html

July 10, 1996

... snip ...

The Washington Times played a story today that tells of the sordid details emerging from the incident. What has come to light is a shocking revelation about president Clinton's arrogant trampling on the rights of both Mr. & Mrs. Mendoza who were present in the Chicago festival on July 2, 1996.

While the Mendozas relaxed at the gathering, they looked up and saw president Clinton walking into the crowd and attempting to shake hands with people there. As the president walked up to Mrs. Mendoza and pushed his hand towards her, she was repulsed and became angry.

Mrs. Mendoza did not feel it was appropriate for the president of the United States to impose himself on her and she had no intention of shaking his hand. Further, Mrs. Mendoza was upset over last month's bombing deaths of 19 U.S. airmen in Saudi Arabia. The president grasped her hand and she protested with words of protest:

"You suck, and those boys died!"

Mrs. Mendoza has said the president looked her in the eyes, then motioned to an assistant and pointed her out, as he continued on past her through the crowd attempting to get photos of people shaking hands with him.

After Clinton left the area, Secret Service agents pounced on Mrs. Mendoza and accused her of "threatening" president Clinton. At that point Mr. Mendoza ordered his wife not to say anything until she consulted an attorney.

... snip ...

The Mendozas were initially charged by the Chicago police with disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor, and were interrogated for 12 hours before they were allowed to leave police headquarters. They are scheduled to appear in court on August 27, 1996.

Just kidding.

 

[BeAChooser]

It doesn't seem right to kill that many people. There is no way this whole debacle should be seen as justifiable, regardless of the outcome. How can we know what might have happened had we not gone to war?

How many people do you think have died since the invasion? Now compare that to the number who died and were dying before the invasion. The UN and WHO concluded that thousands of innocent men, women and children were still dying in Iraq every month shortly before our invasion. They were dying because Saddam was in power. And they would have continued to die at those rates (or even worse) as long as Saddam remain in power. By now we'd be talking about hundreds of thousands.

And how many died before the invasion in all the wars and genocide that Saddam fostered? The Black Book Of Saddam (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=12218&R=EC643701F and http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20458 ) puts the number at well over a MILLION just during the Iran/Iraq war. Never mind, the invasion of Kuwait, and Saddam's brutal suppression of the people in northern and southern Iraq. "The brutal repression of the Shiite uprising after the 1991 Gulf War resulted in another 300,000 deaths, most of them civilians." "Between February and September 1988, 100,000 to 180,000 Kurds died or disappeared."

So don't think that if we hadn't invaded no one would be dying now. Death was a way of life when it came to Saddam and his thugs. It would just be a matter of time before the next conflict ... and that one might really have involved WMD. And at least now we don't have to worry that Saddam will decide to hand WMD over to a third party (like al-Qaeda) to use against us in our cities and kill who knows how many.

 

[Skeptic]

Via war. Nice.

Yes, for some reason talking politely to dictators and asking them to be good boys and agree to democracy doesn't seem to work.

 

[BeAChooser]

I would have rather defeated al Qaeda in Afghanistan than in Iraq, where they didn't exist before we invaded.

It might have been nice to catch even more in Afghanistan but it's simply not true that al-Qaeda wasn't in Iraq before we invaded Iraq. As a result of the invasion of Afghanistan, members of al-Qaeda fled to Iraq and were operating freely about the country (not just in the north) before our invasion. A dozen self admitted members of al-Qaeda admitted that they met with al-Zarqawi in Baghdad before the invasion to get marching orders and funding for a chemical bomb attack in Jordan that might have killed tens of thousands of Jordanians and everyone in the US embassy in Amman had it been successful. And it might have been successful had we not invaded and put al-Qaeda's leadership on the run.