Why?

[Brett A]

Originally Posted by Boreas

(...)Richard Clarke, Bush's Counter-terrorism Coordinator, issued similar warnings which were ignored?

John

Richard Clarke also reports that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld asked Clarke, on the afternoon of Sept 11th, to find a connection between the WTC attacks and Saddam. Even though it was known through our counter-terrorism intel that there was very likely no connection. It looks pretty clear to me that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld has made the decision to change governments in Iraq and used on the 9/11 attacks to push us there.

[piece-itpete]

John, what did Sandy Burgle?

Pete

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

But if we didn't we'd at least still have our planes fired on daily, the UN would be increasingly corrupted,

You think the corruption of the UN has somehow been lessened since Saddam was taken out? How so? And what direct part did Saddam have in the corrupting of the UN?

he'd still be giving rewards to the families of suicide bombers,

So, now that he's gone, there are no more suicide bombings?

and we would be in no position to take out Iran in a couple of days.

Actually, since Saddam, the Sunna and the Ba'athists in Iraq were the sworn enemies of Shi'ite Iran, Iraq would have welcomed our removing a threat to their regime. As it is now, with the Shi'ites basically running the government of Iraq, they would be more of an impediment now than they ever have been.

And, if you think we can finish off Iran in "a couple of days", you're crazy. Iran is a much larger, much better armed country than Iraq. Did we take out Iraq in "a couple of days"?

Oh, and taking out Iran is a "good thing"?

John

[icenine]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

I'm proud of the purple fingers. Regardless of what happened, no one can take that experience away from them - they felt like Americans for a day I suspect the left hates Iraq because they hate Bush, and don't want him to get just credit for reshaping the entire Middle East.Pete

Pete I spent a little time in Iraq in 2004-2005....I was there when the purple finger thing went down. All I can tell you is that the country was a shambles when that election went down. Iraquis cooperating with the United States were being executed daily by pro-Bathists or the Al Queda in Iraq terrorists. And on top of that American fighters were getting killed in convoy attacks and then of course there was the Second Battle for Fallouja in November. And this was before the Civil War they had in 2006-2007
I just remember thinking at the time if they wanted elections so bad why did they not just overthrow Saddam themselves why did we have to do it?
I was really angry with Bush because not only had we invaded a country but because we had not provided security AFTER the invasion. Not only did the Neocons invade Iraq, they did it on the cheap because of Rumfields insane theories of military occupation. The Surge Bush did in 2007 was a response to Rumfield's failure.
Bush did not reshape the Middle East...the people in Egypt, Libya, Syria and Tunisa are doing it without our help. As far as your implication about our giving up Iraq under Obama...trust me if you had been there you would realize it has never ever been ours to give up. Bush's legacy is the Maliki government...and it is up to Maliki to give Bush any sort of legacy in the future depending on how he shapes Iraq.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by icenine

Yeah and the Soviets were pretty good at not letting their nuclear weapons get outside of their control....can not say the same about what a nuclear Iran or Taliban run Pakistan would do with theirs.

Or the Russian Federation is doing now.

John

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

You can't exterminate cockroaches, only surpress them.

But if we didn't we'd at least still have our planes fired on daily, the UN would be increasingly corrupted, he'd still be giving rewards to the families of suicide bombers, and we would be in no position to take out Iran in a couple of days.

Pete

Have you completely lost it? A couple of days my arse.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Have you completely lost it? A couple of days my arse.

"And it is not knowable if force will be used, but if it is to be used, it is not knowable how long that conflict would last. It could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." -- Donald Rumsfeld on the Iraq War

John

[piece-itpete]

We can start fighting in a couple of days, not overrun the country (although youalls are underestimating us).

We wouldn't invade anyway.... but the top would be cut off in days. Notice I'm not saying it would be a good thing.

The Iraqis stepping over dead bodies to vote was inspiring. The Arab Spring did not happen in a vacuum.

Pete

[Zeke]

Iraq is The Battle of Algiers, grand scale. Iran would be worse.

You don't defeat tribalism unless you're willing to go genocide and own it (literally, figuratively and otherwise) all. Why not? Because, if you leave two tribes, they begin fighting again once the occupation is over.

That's one of my biggest arguments with fellow American Indians who espouse an Utopia if a lost Columbus hadn't washed up on our shores or had we "won" the wars of the American West. Bullshit. The only difference would be that McDonald's logo would be an arrowhead, the restaurants would be immense teepees, and patrons -- including me -- would still be fat.

What's happening in Iraq was predictable from the word "go" issued from the White House. An invasion of Iran would be incredibly foolhardy. Anyone who believes we could "cut off the head" fails to realize the power of decentralization.

The French got kicked out of Algiers because of that...

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Zeke

What's happening in Iraq was predictable from the word "go" issued from the White House.

And predicted.

John