Assessing America's 'imperial failure' in Iraq

[Winehole23]

Because our forces are still in Iraq and S. Asia, we still face the forces unleashed by the regional instability that ensued going to war. Don't we?

Not saying this didn't happen in Vietnam, but we got out of Vietnam.

[Winehole23]

It's my fundamental belief that government exists to protect the rights of its people...by means of force if necessary. I wouldn't mind a tax increase if it meant my dollars were going to securing those freedoms.

You didn't mention any freedoms. You only mentioned protection.

[ChumpDumper]

Actually I think the more time we spend there, the less long-term negative impact it has. As long as we continue to rebuild the infrastructure we destroyed during the invasion and train Iraqi security forces/police how to protect their own people, I think we'll continue to repair our relationship with the Iraqi people and the international community as a whole.

Good luck with that. I think ethnic and sectarian strife are the worst problems there and problems the US has done and can do nothing to help. Their continued presence is just a band-aid holding the country together, not wholly unlike the way Saddam's presence did.

[clambake]

when we leave, they'll get down to business. it doesn't matter.

[AFBlue]

Because our forces are still in Iraq and S. Asia, we still face the forces unleashed by the regional instability that ensued going to war. Don't we?

Not saying this didn't happen in Vietnam, but we got out of Vietnam.

We never even gained permanent territory in the North...the campaign was a failure in its entirety. At least with Iraq, we succeeded in ridding ourselves of a perceived threat. Yes we still have troops in Iraq, but being exposed to dangers of the region is much less impact than leaving a country battered and exposed to those threats that we indirectly opened it up to.

[Winehole23]

when we leave, they'll get down to business. it doesn't matter.

*They* might not wait for us to leave if we linger too long.

[AFBlue]

You didn't mention any freedoms. You only mentioned protection.

The freedoms were implied. The protection of those freedoms is against those who would take them from us.

[clambake]

*They* might not wait for us to leave if we linger too long.

oh, i agree completely.

pure comedy thinking the current "regime" will survive.

[clambake]

The freedoms were implied. The protection of those freedoms is against those who would take them from us.

so, now iraq is us?

[boutons_deux]

"ridding ourselves of a perceived threat"

no, it was a bogus threat, a lie by the Repug/neo-c*nts.

and even if it were a threat (Saddam can strike USA with US troops next door in SA and pinning him down with flyovers and non-stop aerial surveillance?), 4000+ dead military, 10s of 1000s maimed for life, and $3T wasted, the cost is not worth it, without even mentioning the destruction of Iraq.

[Winehole23]

We never even gained permanent territory in the North...the campaign was a failure in its entirety. At least with Iraq, we succeeded in ridding ourselves of a perceived threat.

Damning with faint praise?

Yes we still have troops in Iraq, but being exposed to dangers of the region is much less impact than leaving a country battered and exposed to those threats that we indirectly opened it up to.

I would say directly, but this is a quibble. I think leaving ourselves exposed to their social/political instability is a mistake. At some point, they'll have to settle it for themselves with or without our help.

I think we already ed up Iraq enough. GTFO honorably, ASAP. We paid in blood and treasure, for fiasco and bull .

[ChumpDumper]

oh, i agree completely.

pure comedy thinking the current "regime" will survive.

What regime?

Was the election actually resolved?

[AFBlue]

Good luck with that. I think ethnic and sectarian strife are the worst problems there and problems the US has done and can do nothing to help. Their continued presence is just a band-aid holding the country together, not wholly unlike the way Saddam's presence did.

The methods the two employ are entirely different. The purpose of democracy is to give a voice to factions and ethnic groups so that they don't have to use violence. Saddam used force offensively to quash certain factions, ethnic groups.

[ChumpDumper]

The methods the two employ are entirely different. The purpose of democracy is to give a voice to factions and ethnic groups so that they don't have to use violence. Saddam used force offensively to quash certain factions, ethnic groups.

The US hasn't used force offensively to quash certain factions and ethnic groups?

That's rich.

[AFBlue]

so, now iraq is us?

I wasn't responding on Iraq. I was responding on the priority to use government funding on defense.

But on Iraq, the reason we went in was to prevent Saddam from using the WMDs we thought he had...not to liberate a people. So no, Iraq isn't us.

[Winehole23]

The freedoms were implied. The protection of those freedoms is against those who would take them from us.

Sure.

Isn't it possible defense bureaucracies suc b like all others to the tendency to grow without respect to the ultimate mission?

[clambake]

I wasn't responding on Iraq. I was responding on the priority to use government funding on defense.

But on Iraq, the reason we went in was to prevent Saddam from using the WMDs we thought he had...not to liberate a people. So no, Iraq isn't us.

young man, you've been to too many pep rallys.

[AFBlue]

The US hasn't used force offensively to quash certain factions and ethnic groups?

That's rich.

Offensively = without provocation

[Winehole23]

(Who was trying to take away our freedoms?)

[AFBlue]

I think we already ed up Iraq enough. GTFO honorably, ASAP. We paid in blood and treasure, for fiasco and bull .

Right, so let's leave now like we did in Afghanistan.

[Winehole23]

How long do we have to stay?

[clambake]

you can't admit that bush got tired of his afghanistan toy?

[Winehole23]

10 more years?

[Winehole23]

20 years?

[Winehole23]

50 years?