“I think that the surge has succeeded.........

[mraynrand]

and the situation in Iraq was nothing like other contexts where the US has led a human-rights motivated intervention (Bosnia/Kosovo).

Really? What about the 5k children/year starved to death under the U.N. "Oil for food" scandal? What about Iraqis firing on U.S. planes? What about Iraq housing Zarqawi as a guest after he fled Afghanistan? What about Saddam paying off terrorist families as a gift, after their kids slaughter Jews with suicide belts? What about Saddam welcoming the bomb chemist from the 1993 WTC bombing as a personal guest ('ONLY' 6 killed, 1000 wounded from that terrorist plot). Yes, it was 'all about WMDs' - at least that's all the press told you to believe. What about the Oil? I thought the war was about Oil? Is there more Oil in Iraq or in Afghanistan? Whcih country is more important for Oil production? Haven't we secured the oil in one of the richest oil fields in the world?

Did it ever occur to you that some of the terrorists that gave up in Iraq have returned to Afghanistan, just like Zarqawi fled to Iraq after we routed al Quaeda in Afghanistan in 2001? It's a bit like whack a mole, but with each whack, there are less and less murderous, sick twisted islamic fascists. After Iraq, we'll go kick the shit out of them with greater ferocity in Afghanistan, hopefully until they can't even crawl away.

But from your post I see you prefer slaughtering civilians by remote control in Kosovo. got it.

[SkinBasket]

the fact that Cheney-Bush had eleven pretexts shows that none of the was the real reason for invading

I have eleven pretexts for butt raping Harlan. Does that make 4) He's a lovely pianist any less legitimate?

[HowardRoark]

2 points:

1) Barack’s logic is frightenly flawed. He says he was against the war (which is debatable), therefore we should leave. That is not good leadership.

2) Who decides at what level of humanitarian atrocities is worth going to war. Vanity Fair’s pugnacious writer, Christopher Hitchens sure thought it was bad enough. And anyway, we invaded because of lack of compliance with UN Resolutions.

[hoosier]

Really? What about the 5k children/year starved to death under the U.N. "Oil for food" scandal? What about Iraqis firing on U.S. planes? What about Iraq housing Zarqawi as a guest after he fled Afghanistan? What about Saddam paying off terrorist families as a gift, after their kids slaughter Jews with suicide belts? What about Saddam welcoming the bomb chemist from the 1993 WTC bombing as a personal guest ('ONLY' 6 killed, 1000 wounded from that terrorist plot). Yes, it was 'all about WMDs' - at least that's all the press told you to believe. What about the Oil? I thought the war was about Oil? Is there more Oil in Iraq or in Afghanistan? Whcih country is more important for Oil production? Haven't we secured the oil in one of the richest oil fields in the world?

Did it ever occur to you that some of the terrorists that gave up in Iraq have returned to Afghanistan, just like Zarqawi fled to Iraq after we routed al Quaeda in Afghanistan in 2001? It's a bit like whack a mole, but with each whack, there are less and less murderous, sick twisted islamic fascists. After Iraq, we'll go kick the shit out of them with greater ferocity in Afghanistan, hopefully until they can't even crawl away.

But from your post I see you prefer slaughtering civilians by remote control in Kosovo. got it.

The "reasons" you list (oil for food scandal, shooting down planes, gifts to terrorist, playing host to terrorists) might make Saddam a bad guy, but they don't exactly distinguish him from many other leaders in the Middle East and around the world. Some of those leaders have been supported or even propped up by the US when their presence is deemed to be favorable to US economic interests. So these "reasons" alone are clearly not sufficient cause for the US to invade, and they would be conveniently overlooked in other contexts. So don't play the moral card and pretend the Iraq invasion was about helping Iraqis or building democracy or any of that crap. "Democracy" abroad only matters to the necons when it serves as a palliative for US interests. If you're an imperialist at heart--and by imperialist I mean someone whose foreign policy decisions are motivated by self-interest--then come out and say so. If not, if morality plays a role in foreign policy, then the "humanitiarian-democratic" excuses, as well as the "whack-a-mole" theory, don't hold water. How do you justify taking a country to the brink of self-destruction, with all the suffering that implies, just because that enabled you to create a concentrated kill zone for insurgents? Not to mention that the war in fact made becoming an insurgent all that much more attractive for a certain sector of the Islamic world...

[mraynrand]

Really? What about the 5k children/year starved to death under the U.N. "Oil for food" scandal? What about Iraqis firing on U.S. planes? What about Iraq housing Zarqawi as a guest after he fled Afghanistan? What about Saddam paying off terrorist families as a gift, after their kids slaughter Jews with suicide belts? What about Saddam welcoming the bomb chemist from the 1993 WTC bombing as a personal guest ('ONLY' 6 killed, 1000 wounded from that terrorist plot). Yes, it was 'all about WMDs' - at least that's all the press told you to believe. What about the Oil? I thought the war was about Oil? Is there more Oil in Iraq or in Afghanistan? Whcih country is more important for Oil production? Haven't we secured the oil in one of the richest oil fields in the world?

Did it ever occur to you that some of the terrorists that gave up in Iraq have returned to Afghanistan, just like Zarqawi fled to Iraq after we routed al Quaeda in Afghanistan in 2001? It's a bit like whack a mole, but with each whack, there are less and less murderous, sick twisted islamic fascists. After Iraq, we'll go kick the shit out of them with greater ferocity in Afghanistan, hopefully until they can't even crawl away.

But from your post I see you prefer slaughtering civilians by remote control in Kosovo. got it.

The "reasons" you list (oil for food scandal, shooting down planes, gifts to terrorist, playing host to terrorists) might make Saddam a bad guy, but they don't exactly distinguish him from many other leaders in the Middle East and around the world. Some of those leaders have been supported or even propped up by the US when their presence is deemed to be favorable to US economic interests. So these "reasons" alone are clearly not sufficient cause for the US to invade, and they would be conveniently overlooked in other contexts. So don't play the moral card and pretend the Iraq invasion was about helping Iraqis or building democracy or any of that crap. "Democracy" abroad only matters to the necons when it serves as a palliative for US interests. If you're an imperialist at heart--and by imperialist I mean someone whose foreign policy decisions are motivated by self-interest--then come out and say so. If not, if morality plays a role in foreign policy, then the "humanitiarian-democratic" excuses, as well as the "whack-a-mole" theory, don't hold water. How do you justify taking a country to the brink of self-destruction, with all the suffering that implies, just because that enabled you to create a concentrated kill zone for insurgents? Not to mention that the war in fact made becoming an insurgent all that much more attractive for a certain sector of the Islamic world...

It was in the U.S. interest to overthrow Saddam and turn Iraq into a pro U.S. ally in an oil rich region of the Mideast. That's the only reason for the U.S. government to get involved in any foreign affairs - U.S. interest. There were plenty of reasons to think overthrowing Saddam was a compelling U.S. interest. You don't agree. I have no problem with that - there were reasonable arguments against overthrowing Saddam . What was the compelling U.S. interest in Kosovo?

[hoosier]

It was in the U.S. interest to overthrow Saddam and turn Iraq into a pro U.S. ally in an oil rich region of the Mideast. That's the only reason for the U.S. government to get involved in any foreign affairs - U.S. interest. There were plenty of reasons to think overthrowing Saddam was a compelling U.S. interest. You don't agree. I have no problem with that - there were reasonable arguments against overthrowing Saddam . What was the compelling U.S. interest in Kosovo?

There are also different definitions of what "US interest" is. One example is when "US interest" is invoked to give more political weight to certain corporate interests. That's what happened with the US and Chile in 1973: ITT wanted Allende out, and its interests suddenly became synonymous with "US interests." In Kosovo, on the other hand, it's true that nobody tried to justify intervention by appealing to "US interests." But the overriding sentiment of the prointerventionists was that it was in the US's interest to prevent genocide--not ONLY in the US's interest but in everyone's. Even if you don't accept the idea that the US should care about humanistic principles, there is still the argument that it's in the US's interest to be seen globally as a beacon of democracy and justice, and that intervening in Kosovo promoted that goal, whereas invading Iraq didn't.

[SkinBasket]

And anyway, we invaded because of lack of compliance with UN Resolutions.

No one ever likes to talk about that.

[mraynrand]

Even if you don't accept the idea that the US should care about humanistic principles, there is still the argument that it's in the US's interest to be seen globally as a beacon of democracy and justice, and that intervening in Kosovo promoted that goal, whereas invading Iraq didn't.

It's always startling to me to see someone try to wrap themselves in knots to justify one intervention as being for democracy and justice, but somehow, deposing a brutal dictator and his sadistic family, establishing the most advanced democracy in the Mideast outside Israel, with religious pluralism, in the interest of reducing terrorism, while securing one of the largest oilfields on the planet, is somehow not even in the same category. Do you even read what you write? Do you even think about it?

[retailguy]

And anyway, we invaded because of lack of compliance with UN Resolutions.

No one ever likes to talk about that.

It is kind of like they'll think we'll forget if they just keep talking about WMD's. Notice how they've all forgotten that he violated over 20 UN resolutions? Bush was wrong, that's the REALLY important thing. I still want to know what was in those trucks. They never have told us. If they did, then I missed it.

[hoosier]

It's always startling to me to see someone try to wrap themselves in knots to justify one intervention as being for democracy and justice, but somehow, deposing a brutal dictator and his sadistic family, establishing the most advanced democracy in the Mideast outside Israel, with religious pluralism, in the interest of reducing terrorism, while securing one of the largest oilfields on the planet, is somehow not even in the same category. Do you even read what you write? Do you even think about it?

One could ask the same of you: You speak of people "wrapping themselves in knots" to justify A and not B, and this is exactly what the necons do with Iraq. How does "deposing a brutal dictator" possibly factor in when, in other situations, the US has gone far out of its way to help brutal dictators assume power? Deposing a brutal dictator is a line that you throw out because it suits your purposes, whereas the true motives lie elsewhere. But if those real motives are so noble, why the constant need to find moral narratives (deposing the evil one)?

I won't even touch the "establishing the most advanced democracy" line. That remains to be seen, but judging from Cheney-Bush's performace to date I would say that, if it happens, it's gonna happen despite them and not because of them. Same for reducing terrorism: Iraq did nothing of the sort, it greatly increased the number of terrorist acts and has proved a breeding ground for the next generation of terrorists. That wouldn't have been part of the strategy, now, would it?

[mraynrand]

It's always startling to me to see someone try to wrap themselves in knots to justify one intervention as being for democracy and justice, but somehow, deposing a brutal dictator and his sadistic family, establishing the most advanced democracy in the Mideast outside Israel, with religious pluralism, in the interest of reducing terrorism, while securing one of the largest oilfields on the planet, is somehow not even in the same category. Do you even read what you write? Do you even think about it?

One could ask the same of you: You speak of people "wrapping themselves in knots" to justify A and not B, and this is exactly what the necons do with Iraq. How does "deposing a brutal dictator" possibly factor in when, in other situations, the US has gone far out of its way to help brutal dictators assume power? Deposing a brutal dictator is a line that you throw out because it suits your purposes, whereas the true motives lie elsewhere. But if those real motives are so noble, why the constant need to find moral narratives (deposing the evil one)?

I won't even touch the "establishing the most advanced democracy" line. That remains to be seen, but judging from Cheney-Bush's performace to date I would say that, if it happens, it's gonna happen despite them and not because of them. Same for reducing terrorism: Iraq did nothing of the sort, it greatly increased the number of terrorist acts and has proved a breeding ground for the next generation of terrorists. That wouldn't have been part of the strategy, now, would it?

My position isn't inconsistent. Supporting certain dictators was done, ostensibly in the U.S.'s interest. And as far as the noble goal of deposing Saddam, it was stated: - to get rid of state sponsors of terrorism (is that not a noble goal?). Killing a whole ton of terrorists that flooded into Iraq to fight in Osama's most critical battle, seems to have reduced the number of terrorists dramatically. That's a good thing. Where exactly are these next generation of breeded terrorists that you speak of? as far as I can tell, they are mostly buried in Iraqi soil. As far as the democracy in Iraq - name a better one in the Mideast other than Israel right now. I'll wait while you find it. And despite your protestations, Iraq is on the path to peace and democracy because of Bush and Cheney -they had to overthrow Saddam to change the government right? And because of Bush changing policy and putting Petraeus in charge, not withdrawing when it was politically expedient, etc. Iraq is on the road to democracy, rather than onthe road to sponsoring terrorism. Mission Accomplished.

[Freak Out]

The Iraqi government is working more effectively and has a higher approval rating than the Democrat controlled U.S. Congress.

Sure thing Rand. This is the funniest thing I've heard all day.

[SkinBasket]

And anyway, we invaded because of lack of compliance with UN Resolutions.

No one ever likes to talk about that.

It is kind of like they'll think we'll forget if they just keep talking about WMD's. Notice how they've all forgotten that he violated over 20 UN resolutions? Bush was wrong, that's the REALLY important thing. I still want to know what was in those trucks. They never have told us. If they did, then I missed it.

Those trucks never existed. Dick Cheney drew those diagrams and photo shopped those sat photos when taking breaks from working on his master plan to destroy the levees in NO by creating a massive hurricane and driving barges into the walls.

[mraynrand]

The Iraqi government is working more effectively and has a higher approval rating than the Democrat controlled U.S. Congress.

Sure thing Rand. This is the funniest thing I've heard all day.

I laugh about it sometimes too. It helps ease the pain. But factually, it is true. The Iraqis have higher confidence in their government at present and their government has accomplished far more than the Reid and Pelosi Congress. it's not even close.

[HarveyWallbangers]

The Iraqi government is working more effectively and has a higher approval rating than the Democrat controlled U.S. Congress.

Sure thing Rand. This is the funniest thing I've heard all day.

It's actually true. Congress has somewhere between a 16-20% approval rating, so it wouldn't be hard to beat.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...roval-903.html

[mraynrand]

Those trucks never existed. Dick Cheney drew those diagrams and photo shopped those sat photos when taking breaks from working on his master plan to destroy the levees in NO by creating a massive hurricane and driving barges into the walls.

It was I who allowed the trucks to pass into Syria! It was I who caused Katrina to turn north towards New Orleans. Oh, I'm afraid the levees will be quite un-operational when the floods arrive. HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!

[mraynrand]

The Iraqi government is working more effectively and has a higher approval rating than the Democrat controlled U.S. Congress.

Sure thing Rand. This is the funniest thing I've heard all day.

It's actually true. Congress has somewhere between a 16-20% approval rating, so it wouldn't be hard to beat.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...roval-903.html

It actually dipped to 9% at one point.