End of War in Iraq

[Moonlight Graham]

I just don't understand the mindset of an individual who sits there, typing gleefully in hopes that a country descends in to chaos and destruction. How compassionate.

All because they don't like the actions of an ex-President. Pretty disgusting.

LOL i just said that i hope Iraq becomes a liberal democracy, but that i am very skeptical it will happen. It's called reality. But I do hope i am wrong. I'm not rooting for violence and authoritarianism/totalitarianism.

[ToadBrother]

Anyways, Iraq is in a much better position than when Saddam Hussein was in power. They're also in a much better position than a few years ago, before the surge. Thank God President Bush was a true leader, and did what was right, and not what was politically expedient. The surge worked. Does that mean violence in Iraq is over? No. There will be ups and downs. But hopefully they can continue to progress forward.

If he had been such a great leader, he would have put considerably more forces on the ground during the initial invasion.

But we have no idea what will happen in a few years. What we know right now is that 50,000 US troops will remain in Iraq, which seems to underscore the point that Iraq's current government still relies on the US for its survival.

Here's a history lesson for you. Britain didn't remain Roman very long after the Legions pulled out.

[msj]

"End of War in Iraq"...hahahahahaha

It's MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! all over again.

Some troops leave, yet the war marches on. As Matthew Good aptly puts it:

Thanks for the link.

That Matthew Good is a real A**hole!

Wish he'd get back together with the band and produce another album like Underdogs.

Edited August 21, 2010 by msj

[Shwa]

The grand successes of the Iraq War can be measured in numerous ways. The "fragile democracy" we like to speak of--as if it's a beautiful but delicate flower that we all admire--is a situation in which an election held months ago has failed to produce an actual government. But who are the "armchair generals"--the critics--to judge? judgement properly belongs to the other "armchair generals"--the war's supporters. It's their war, after all--they own it, the way that religious heterosexuals "own" the word "marriage"--so critics have no right to say anything about it. That's just "common sense."

Educated Iraqis have fled the country in droves. But that's good, no? Who needs any damn intellectuals and professionals? Damn elites. Sam Walton drove a pick-up truck, you know.

There remains approximately four million refugees. Well, that's only one out of six Iraqis, not too shabby! Many are living illegally in neighbouring countries, scraping a living through sex work, underpaid hard labour and other fine professions. So what's the problem? Freedom rings.

Electricity has now risen to about fifteen hours a day in Baghdad (which is high compared to some other regions, say Fallujah, which is now prettily poisonous thanks to the coalition). But fifteen hours a day isn't bad in 45 degree heat--it's more electricity than they had a couple of years ago, and a mere nine hours a day less than they had before the war; so who's complaining? (Well, Iraqis no doubt are complaining, but they don't understand Freedom the way we Western sophisticates do.)

What's important is that "the troops" (Peace Be Unto their Name, since they're Holy) living in newly-minted Western-style enclaves (no Peasants allowed, thank you) are living in comfort, and get to have fun with Iraqi sex workers who were driven into prostitution by the very war that their very clients were ordered to prosecute. See how the world keeps spinning, and how things work out for the best?

The country is now violently sectarian in a way it wasn't before...so the coalition (ie the Empire and its number two, the Former Empire) brought Diversity to the forefront of Iraqi cultural life! That the Iraqis are ingrates (as neoconservative elder statesman Richard Perle soberly pointed out) shouldn't dissuade Western celebration of the grand success.

Also, the Dawa, who were allies of the suicide bombers who blew up the the Marine base in Beirut, now help to "run" Iraq (and a fine job they're doing!). So "terrorists" became "democrats" through sheer force of American will. This is part of the redemptive power of American-led wars, we're led to understand, since such wars are by definition well-intentioned and supportive of Liberty. As Mark Steyn has informed us (rightfully and righteously mocking the global majority who disagree with him on everything), now Syria and Saudi Arabia will become Democracies, as a result of neoconservative (nee Cold War Policy) Domino effects of democratization; Syria and Saudi Arabia, Steyn informed us, will be democratically-run by 2010.

Oops...oh well, there's four months left. Could happen.

And Iraq will be a tourist trap by...2004. Oops...well, let's set the bar lower, and deride everyone who criticizes this noble experiment.

The war is won. We just don't know won it, yet.

Methinks your analysis has had a wing clipping effect on MLW's hawks. Either that or the 'arm-chair generals' went for a lengthy bathroom break.

[bush_cheney2004]

If he had been such a great leader, he would have put considerably more forces on the ground during the initial invasion.

Presidents don't make this kind of nuts and bolts decision.....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/12/AR2005071201422.html

But we have no idea what will happen in a few years. What we know right now is that 50,000 US troops will remain in Iraq, which seems to underscore the point that Iraq's current government still relies on the US for its survival.

Correct....as do the Koreans....been there for over 50 years.

Here's a history lesson for you. Britain didn't remain Roman very long after the Legions pulled out.

Neither did the American colonies.

[Moonlight Graham]

Thanks for the link.

That Matthew Good is a real A**hole!

Wish he'd get back together with the band and produce another album like Underdogs.

"Avalanche", his 1st solo album, was a much better album than Underdogs, and The Audio of Being was a much better album when they were still together.

[Moonlight Graham]

...Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

- John F. Kennedy (1961)

Except for Vietnam. Significant US casualties (but not compared to Vietnamese casualties) and they let liberty fall.

They also don't seem to have much of a problem with the undemocratic Saudi Arabia, whose citizens formed the majority of the attackers on 9/11 and who form the majority of foreign fighters opposing the US in Iraq, as long as the Saudis help fill American gas tanks.

Also didn't have a problem helping remove the democratic gov in Iran for the Shah for oil.

The above quote is b.s. It should read "...Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty, but only as long as it advances our own self-regarding interests."

All states are ultimately self-regarding in terms of foreign policy, screw this liberal bullcrap. And before you say it, no Canada is no different. And i'm sure you well know that the U.S. did not invade Iraq simply in the name of liberty and spreading liberalism/freedom.

[PoliticalCitizen]

The above quote is b.s. It should read "...Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty, but only as long as it advances our own self-regarding interests."

More like:

"...Let every nation that has no nuclear weapons and any kind of natural resources, or advantageous geographical location, or is too independent know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend or foe or anybody else, oppose any friend or foe or anybody else, in order to assure the aforementioned country submits to our will and does what we say, how we say and when we say it even if it means robbing, enslaving and killing its own citizens."

[bush_cheney2004]

Except for Vietnam. Significant US casualties (but not compared to Vietnamese casualties) and they let liberty fall.

...not for lack of trying. Many Canadians joined in the fight unofficially.

They also don't seem to have much of a problem with the undemocratic Saudi Arabia, whose citizens formed the majority of the attackers on 9/11 and who form the majority of foreign fighters opposing the US in Iraq, as long as the Saudis help fill American gas tanks.

Correct...the US also did not bomb Canada into a smoldering hockey puck because of terrorists like the Millenium Bomber crossing the border.

Also didn't have a problem helping remove the democratic gov in Iran for the Shah for oil.

Not at all...just like Canada in Haiti. Nothing that JFK said precludes this....that's just your own spin.

The above quote is b.s. It should read "...Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty, but only as long as it advances our own self-regarding interests."

The quote is verbatim....too bad for you.

All states are ultimately self-regarding in terms of foreign policy, screw this liberal bullcrap. And before you say it, no Canada is no different. And i'm sure you well know that the U.S. did not invade Iraq simply in the name of liberty and spreading liberalism/freedom.

Boo hoo...the US will "invade" whenever it pleases, and there is nothing your revisionist whining can do about it. Canada is irrelevant when it comes to Iraq.

Edited August 23, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

More like:

More like....please buy all our uranium! LOL!

Edited August 23, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Shady]

They also don't seem to have much of a problem with the undemocratic Saudi Arabia

Define what you mean by problem. And what other countries have a "problem" with Saudi Arabia? Other than Iran and Syria.

whose citizens formed the majority of the attackers on 9/11

Ya know who else formed the majority of attackers on 9/11? Muslims.

as long as the Saudis help fill American gas tanks.

The Saudis fill a lot of countires gas tanks. I'm not sure why you people think they have an exclusive contract with America. It must be something in your kool-aids. But as I've already pointed out. America gets more oil from Canada and Mexico than the Middle East. But don't let facts get in the way of your ignorance.

[GostHacked]

Define what you mean by problem. And what other countries have a "problem" with Saudi Arabia? Other than Iran and Syria.

If you want to confront radical Islam, you MUST start with Saudi Arabia. They are much worse than other countries like Iran and Syria. people seem to give them a pass at the same time complaining that Iran and Syria are being to troublesome. When it comes down to it, I am thinking the terrorist money flowing around the world starts in Saudi Arabia. If you followed the money, I do believe it will bring you to that conclusion.

Ya know who else formed the majority of attackers on 9/11? Muslims.

Yes and they were mostly from Saudi Arabia.

The Saudis fill a lot of countires gas tanks. I'm not sure why you people think they have an exclusive contract with America. It must be something in your kool-aids. But as I've already pointed out. America gets more oil from Canada and Mexico than the Middle East. But don't let facts get in the way of your ignorance.

They could possibly really be the ones behind that big hole in the ground in NYC.

Bin Laden was Saudi

Most of the hijackers were Saudi.

2+2 = ???? 3 Yes I know ...

[PoliticalCitizen]

If you want to confront radical Islam, you MUST start with Saudi Arabia.

Why would anyone try to confront radical Islam anymore than orthodox Judaism or any other religion?

Why would US spoil relations with Saudi Arabia? The Bin Ladens helped US stage 9/11, after all...

[Shady]

Why would anyone try to confront radical Islam anymore than orthodox Judaism or any other religion?

Because radical Islam is more abundant.

The Bin Ladens helped US stage 9/11, after all...

With the help of Batman, Wonderwoman, and the singer formerly known as Cat Stevens. I hate it when people leave them out. They were just as important!

[dre]

Why would anyone try to confront radical Islam anymore than orthodox Judaism or any other religion?

Why would US spoil relations with Saudi Arabia? The Bin Ladens helped US stage 9/11, after all...

Why would anyone try to confront radical Islam anymore than orthodox Judaism or any other religion?

Few different reasons...

1. Muslims are a more easily identifiable minority. Theyre brown, and they talk funny.

2. We have been in a constant stuggle over the resources in the middle east for a hundred years or so. Weve been killing people over there like crazy, and theyve been killing us. Because of this people in that region have a very very low opinion of the US and West and most of those people happen to be muslim.

Why would US spoil relations with Saudi Arabia? The Bin Ladens helped US stage 9/11, after all...

Iv never seen any evidence to support that claim. I mostly just think that Americans were lulled into a false sense of security by geography, and everyone saw terrorism at something that mostly happens "over there". So Americans never took security seriously... three thousand dollars worth of cockpit doors would have prevented 911.

I think you could definately accuse the US government of criminal negligence and outrageous stupidity. But actual complicity in the planning is over the top and not very likely at all.

[Shady]

You forgot #3. Muslims commit the most acts of terrorism. In fact, it's not even close. They win the gold medal by a thousand miles!

[PoliticalCitizen]

1. Muslims are a more easily identifiable minority. Theyre brown, and they talk funny.

Funny, sad, and true...

2. We have been in a constant stuggle over the resources in the middle east for a hundred years or so. Weve been killing people over there like crazy, and theyve been killing us. Because of this people in that region have a very very low opinion of the US and West and most of those people happen to be muslim.

Or any other religion or lack of thereof.

Iv never seen any evidence to support that claim.

The really scary question is: What evidence have you seen supporting the OFFICIAL claim?

Edited August 24, 2010 by PoliticalCitizen

[Moonlight Graham]

...not for lack of trying.

If you're sticking to JFK's ideals, you should have tried a lot harder and sacrificed many more Americans for "liberty". "...that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship..."

Boo hoo...the US will "invade" whenever it pleases, and there is nothing your revisionist whining can do about it. Canada is irrelevant when it comes to Iraq.

Look at me my chest is puffed out me a big tough American and strutting around rah rah rah, America do whatever we please! Canada is weak America strong! HULK SMASH!!!!! BRAH!!!!!

Most any country can invade whatever country it pleases. But it will suffer the consequences of those actions.

[Moonlight Graham]

Ya know who else formed the majority of attackers on 9/11? Muslims.

Ya know who else? Males. People with brown skin. People with dark hair and eyes. People who speak Arabic.

BAN ALL PEOPLE WITH DARK HAIR AND DARK EYES FROM COMING WITHIN 4 BLOCKS OF GROUND ZERO!

[bush_cheney2004]

If you're sticking to JFK's ideals, you should have tried a lot harder and sacrificed many more Americans for "liberty". "...that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship..."

The Americans did pay the price...and those who desired liberty escaped on boats...I saw it with my own eyes. Guess where they went?

Look at me my chest is puffed out me a big tough American and strutting around rah rah rah, America do whatever we please! Canada is weak America strong! HULK SMASH!!!!! BRAH!!!!!

Correct...would you rather I pretend otherwise just in the interest of not offending your tender sensitivities. Your own nation sometimes gets in on the action, but it has to be called "peacekeeping" to keep the citizenry happy (and sanctimonious).

Most any country can invade whatever country it pleases. But it will suffer the consequences of those actions.

It will also reap the rewards. No balls....no blue chips.

[Shady]

Speaking of the war in Iraq...

Little-known fact: Obama's failed stimulus program cost more than the Iraq war

Well, it was expensive to be sure, in both blood and treasure, but, as Hoven notes, the CBO puts the total cost at $709 billion.

...

Obama's stimulus, passed in his first month in office, will cost more than the entire Iraq War -- more than $100 billion (15%) more.

Link

[Smallc]

Yeah, well, except for the failed part. I can only imagine how bad things would have been without it.

[PoliticalCitizen]

It will also reap the rewards. No balls....no blue chips.

Whether we like it or not, a lot (if not most) of the comforts of life we enjoy here in Canada are due in part (possibly the biggest part) to USA's imperialistic tactics and resource wars around the world.

[Shady]

I can only imagine how bad things would have been without it.

False choice. It's not a "if you don't like Obama's stimulus, then you don't want a stimulus at all" issue. A properly constructed stimulus would have had a much greater effect. But after seeing so many false choices, and strawman arguments regarding the mosque situation. It doesn't suprise me that you're continuing the pattern elsewhere too.

[Moonlight Graham]

Speaking of the war in Iraq...

Uhhhhhh, Bush Jr. supported the bailout/stimulus actions when he was still in office:

WASHINGTON (CNN) - Sept. 25, 2008 -- U.S. President George W. Bush, saying "our entire economy is in danger," urged Congress to approve his administration's $700 billion bailout proposal.

"We're in the midst of a serious financial crisis, and the federal government is responding with decisive actions," Bush said in a televised address Wednesday night from the White House.

Bush pointed out that the collapse of several major lenders was rooted in the subprime mortgage market that thrived over the past decade.

He said passage of the $700 billion bailout proposal was needed to restore confidence in the market.

Also, from Wikipedia:

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, abbreviated ARRA (Pub.L. 111-5) and commonly referred to as the Stimulus or The Recovery Act, is an economic stimulus package enacted by the 111th United States Congress in February 2009. The Act followed other economic recovery legislation passed in the final year of the Bush presidency including the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 and the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 which created the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP).