War in Iraq - 3 Years

Well, everything's gone ballistic as usual... i'm gonna try and split my wee musings into sections for clarity...


Vietnam Parallels

Intriguing parallel you've spotted there Piddy, on the current bodycount front. Like you say, i'm sure the US will do anything to avoid things escalating like before - and the only thing that would cause a body count like that would be all-out war. (Which, unfortunately, is a possibility, in various forms).

Whenever Vietnam is brought up i tend to think of McNamara's point in The Fog of War about how the US had misunderstood their enemy and intervened in a foolish manner. IE The apparent fact that the Vietnamese would have fiercely resisted absorption by Red-China, seeing as China was a long-standing and hated enemy of theirs.

I can't help but feel there's been some comparable mistakes made here... and some new ones too... (the most notable being the apparent pursuit of a 'neocon' multi-fronted invade-and-convert policy)



The Rush to Peace


Well, part of the reason for people jumping on failures is the rush with which the admin has predicted success in the past. There have been verbal predictions from the political 'bandstand', such as...

“I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.” – Dick Cheney, May 31 2005.
(And i feel compelled to add... “If you look at what the dictionary says about throes, it can still be a violent period,” – Dick Cheney, June 23 2005 )

The most damning prediction of comparatively swift success was implicit however. It was implicit in the laughable troop numbers which Rumsfeld et al opted for, and the contingent lack of a decent post-war plan.

---

Incidently, i'm not sure the US-nation-building parallel entirely holds true. Iraqis are hardly unified by the 'pioneer spirit' which took all the various emigrees to the Americas in the first place. They haven't escaped the rigid geopolitical 'facts on the ground' of their homelands either. They're still living amongst them. It's a distinct type of dawn, it seems to me.

So why the hell wasn't it?

On a more constructive note, i do agree that a lasting democracy will be a great achievement, if it happens - but it's incredibly far from established as yet. It's a bit early to be waving the 'momentous accomplishment' flag, don't you think?



Changes on the Ground

The problem there is that any Kurdish movement towards founding a new state will cause aggression from both the rest of Iraq (who won't fancy losing the northern oil fields) and from the bordering countries with Kurdish populations - who will fear internal uprisings and probably increase their own internal Kurdish-repressions as well.

What's more, such a shift towards seperatism may encourage a split between Sunni and Shia - who may then align with countries nearby of the same denomination - or perhaps form their own states. Either way what you looking at is a recipe for war - possibly on multiple fronts.

So... the prob seems to be - is Kurdish separation possible without causing serious repurcussions for both them and others? Currently, it seems pretty unlikely.

Ay

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

very good post Golgot. here's my thumb up.

__________________
We're a generation of men raised by women. I'm wondering if another woman is really the answer we need.

Hell, I probably would've settled for fifty.


I'd say he "wanted" to because it made sense. For one, we had every reason in the world to believe Iraq possessed WMDs at the time (despite the surprisingly resilient but ultimately indefensible claim that he knew otherwise). It also made sense, strategically (Iran sits directly between Iraq and Afghanistan).

The fact that it was also the right thing to do, morally, only made the decision easier. We should be glad that morality saw some overlap with national interest, rather than condemnding the fact that national interest played a role.

I'd say it was an overdue outrage, though discussions about motivation involve little more than guesswork and conjecture. Also, Bush was not speaking for every U.S. President in history, so I don't think the "he's a bad guy" reason would have required him to explain anything during the 1980s.


True. I'm encouraged by the fact that most people agree on this, at the very least.


Any attempt to confront Islamic radicals was inevitably going to risk angering some borderline Islamic moderates. Not confronting them as a result is little more than veiled appeasement. Also, for all the talk of alienating moderates, I don't know that we've seen any objective confirmation of this. It's the kind of thing that sounds plausible, and may very well be true, but I don't think it makes much of an argument without some kind of independent verification that it's happening, and happening to the degree you're saying.

That said, if the recruitment of radicals is of primary concern, surely that suggests that we must stay in Iraq until the job is finished. For all the people we may have provoked by invading Iraq, I'd imagine it'd be nothing compared to the recruitment we'd see if the insurgents were to break our will there.


I'll take you at your word that you don't recall hearing about the importance of a democratic Iraq before it became clear we weren't going to find any WMDs. I'm afraid you can't foist your memory lapses off onto Dubya, though:

• "And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)
  
  ...
  
  And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies -- and freedom. (Applause.)" -- George W. Bush - January 28th, 2003 (State of the Union)

• "And there's no doubt in my mind, when the United States acts abroad and home, we do so based upon values -- particularly the value that we hold dear to our hearts, and that is, everybody ought to be free. I want to repeat what I said during my State of the Union to you. Liberty is not America's gift to the world. What we believe strongly, and what we hold dear, is liberty is God's gift to mankind." -- George W. Bush - February 10th, 2003 (Remarks at "Congress of Tomorrow" reception)

• "Action to remove the threat from Iraq would also allow the Iraqi people to build a better future for their society. And Iraq's liberation would be the beginning, not the end, of our commitment to its people." -- George W. Bush - March 16th, 2003 (Press Conference)

• "My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.
  
  ...
  
  To all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces now in the Middle East, the peace of a troubled world and the hopes of an oppressed people now depend on you." -- George W. Bush - March 19th, 2003 (Address to the Nation)

• "The people who serve in the military are giving their best to this country. We have the responsibility to give them our full support as they fight for the liberty of an oppressed people, for the security of the United States, and for the peace of the world." -- George W. Bush - March 29th, 2003 (Radio Address)

• "As we press on to liberate every corner of Iraq, we are beginning the difficult work of helping Iraqis to build a free and stable country. The immediate tasks involve establishing order, as well as delivering food and water and medicines. We'll help Iraqis to restore electrical power and other basic services. We'll help destroy the former regime's weapons of mass destruction. We'll help the Iraqi people to establish a just and representative government, which respects human rights and adheres to the rule of law. These tasks will take effort, and these tasks will take time. But I have faith in the Iraqi people, and I believe that a free Iraq can be an example of reform and progress to all the Middle East." -- George W. Bush - April 15th, 2003 (Remarks from the Rose Garden)

• "In the new era that is coming to Iraq, your country will no longer be held captive to the will of a cruel dictator. You will be free to build a better life, instead of building more palaces for Saddam and his sons, free to pursue economic prosperity without the hardship of economic sanctions, free to travel and speak your mind, free to join in the political affairs of Iraq. And all the people who make up your country – Kurds, Shi’a, Turkomans, Sunnis, and others – will be free of the terrible persecution that so many have endured. The nightmare that Saddam Hussein has brought to your nation will soon be over. You are a good and gifted people – the heirs of a great civilisation that contributes to all humanity. You deserve better than tyranny and corruption and torture chambers. You deserve to live as free people. And I assure every citizen of Iraq: your nation will soon be free." -- George W. Bush - April 10th, 2003 (Message to the Iraqi people)

Even if we ignore these quotes (and I don't see how we can), you're essentially proposing that we condemn this President in particular for engaging in public relations, even though we all know it's a part of winning public support in any matter. That would be moving the goal posts.

These are perfectly good questions (though I don't see much basis for the cynical conclusion you've come to). The problem is, questions like these have scared us away from confronting dictators like Hussein for decades. We've been choosing the relative stability of dictators over the uncertainty of nation-building and democracy. As you mention earlier in your post, we've sided with them out of convenience out of the past. Clearly, you don't think much of that. But you think even less of siding against them. So what would you have done, exactly? It's easy to point at the action and the suffering that has resulted. It's not as easy to remember that inaction had brought suffering for a decade before that.


There is no reasonable definition of the word "imperialism" that this action would fall under, unless you believe that we do not, in fact, plan to leave, even if and when Iraq's security has improved.

deep argumentation, in the post as a whole.
just two thoughts that occurred to me while reading the whole of it:

1) (about the citation) who's Bush (and any human being) to give himself the right to speak in God's name? (note it'd be the same if he talked in gods' name) and especially, doesn't it ring a bell from earlier times (it does in Europe most of the time, where "ancient" history is present in many people's mind), when the crusaders pretended to be the ones in possession of the only truth, and gave themselves the right to kill in the name of God, actually, just like their enemies did too? and couldn't this sentence, maybe changing God for Allah in order to make it even clearer, be pronounced by those it's supposed to fight against?

2) France left Senegal as an example, but still have more than a word to say when it comes to political decisions in this country, like my Senegalese friends gave me hundreds of examples for. it actually borders foreign control on an ex-colony's decisions. meaning: leaving (army, etc...) is not all. there CAN be neocolonialism without the presence of an army, i'm sure you know that.

I don't think so, because the insurgents are not, by anyone's standard, fighting for freedom. They don't even pretend to.

We can certainly quibble about whether or not America is being as altruistic as it claims, but the goals of the two sides contrast greatly. The insurgents openly target innocent civilians and do not hide the fact that they wish to establish at worst, a dictatorship, and at best, a theocracy.

As for speaking in God's name; it's certainly not the kind of thing I think much of, however invoking God as someone who stands on the side of freedom is a pretty safe bet. No one would be concerned about Bush trying to "speak for God" if he said "God wishes us to be kind." It's when people try to pretend they know what God thinks about things in which He hasn't spoken that we get into murky waters, in my opinion. That's the danger, after all; pretending God is behind an un-Godly cause. I don't think spreading freedom qualifies.

That's a fair point. But I'd have to ask, if this is the worst that happens, isn't that a marked improvement for the Iraqi people? Some vague, non-legal influence that America has, as opposed to the much-publicized rape rooms and torture chambers of the Hussein regime?

i'm far from a specialist of the Koran, although i read the beginning. viewed from the other point of view, don't (at least some) Iraqi insurgents believe they really fight after God's words? - isn't it all a question of what side you stand, and finally, a question of what your faith is?

i can agree with you that it may be better for the Iraqi people, that's a fact, but shouldn't we demand more, if we want justice, than the solution of less evil (the impact of this expression here is not what i'm at btw)? at least wish for it and try to find the best solution, if we're honest to our principles?

Originally Posted by Yoda

I'd say he "wanted" to because it made sense.

I'd say he wanted to because the window of opportunity was closing. After 911, the Bush Administration had a limited time when they could launch an attack on Iraq with little resistance... from Congress or the American people. Bush played his two best cards: fear and patriotism. It wouldn't have worked prior to 911 and it may not have worked three years after 911. In fact, a preemptive attack with so little evidence would have been unthinkable.

For one, we had every reason in the world to believe Iraq possessed WMDs at the time (despite the surprisingly resilient but ultimately indefensible claim that he knew otherwise). It also made sense, strategically (Iran sits directly between Iraq and Afghanistan).

Maybe Bush really believed Saddam had WMD. Maybe the intelligence wasn't "fixed", manipulated or cherry picked. Is that still a valid reason for invasion? Consider this for a moment... In a conversation with Bush pal, evangelist Pat Robertson, Robertson expressed concern of "many casualties" if we invaded. Bush replied "Don't worry, there won't be any." Does that sound like a man who is concerned about WMD?

Your second reason is the more likely IMO. Iraq is a strategic location. Iraq has lots of oil. The rush to war over WMD was BS and the current reason of democracy is more BS. But bringing democracy to Iraq is a good explanation for not leaving...until the "job is done." When will the job be done? There are over one billion Muslims with increasing hostility for the West every day. People who kill themselves for a cause (however misguided) won't be giving up any time soon.

The fact that it was also the right thing to do, morally, only made the decision easier. We should be glad that morality saw some overlap with national interest, rather than condemnding the fact that national interest played a role.

I don't condemn national interest. Our national interests were: strategic location, lots of oil and perhaps, a stable democracy in the Middle East. Those weren't the reasons we were given. Because a war wouldn't have been approved for those reasons. So we were given reasons based on fear and revenge. The Administration wanted war and it used disingenuous reasons to get it.

Any attempt to confront Islamic radicals was inevitably going to risk angering some borderline Islamic moderates. Not confronting them as a result is little more than veiled appeasement.

I'm all for confronting the Islamic radicals. Going to Afghanistan, toppling the Taliban (who supported bin Laden) and chasing down al Qaeda was an excellent example of confronting the radicals. A preemptive invasion of a Muslim country that had nothing to do with 911 is not "confronting the radicals." Unless one has a murky image of anyone Bush chooses to fight as a radical and a terrorist.

Also, for all the talk of alienating moderates, I don't know that we've seen any objective confirmation of this.

That's true, I haven't seen objective confirmation either. But I'm guessing that when foreign troops invade a country, kill 30,000 of its people, wound tens of thousands more and cause massive destruction of the infrastructure; more than a few moderates are going to be alienated. And not only moderates in that country but in other countries that share a similar tradition.

That said, if the recruitment of radicals is of primary concern, surely that suggests that we must stay in Iraq until the job is finished.

As I said earlier, there are over one billion Muslims. And I suspect the number of radicals will increase with our continued presence in Iraq. If the options are civil war or an indefinite US occupation, what is the choice? Do we stay and remain a part of the daily death and bloodshed or do we leave and leave the fate of Iraq to the Iraqi people? At what point do we say "We got rid of Saddam and helped establish a government, it's up to you now."

My opinion: Bush has no intention of leaving. Iraq might collapse into full blown civil war and that would be failure. Bush can't even admit a simple mistake, let alone a massive failure like Iraq. He intends to pass the mess along to the next President. He'll be Johnson to that President's Nixon.

For all the people we may have provoked by invading Iraq, I'd imagine it'd be nothing compared to the recruitment we'd see if the insurgents were to break our will there.

So where does that leave us? Do you expect the insurgency to stop? They have that same reasoning..."The US is not going to break our will." They have the same refusal to accept defeat as Bush has. So do we fight for the next 50 years like Israel and Palestine?

I'll take you at your word that you don't recall hearing about the importance of a democratic Iraq before it became clear we weren't going to find any WMDs. I'm afraid you can't foist your memory lapses off onto Dubya, though:

• "And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)
  
  
  
  And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies -- and freedom. (Applause.)" -- George W. Bush - January 28th, 2003 (State of the Union)

• "And there's no doubt in my mind, when the United States acts abroad and home, we do so based upon values -- particularly the value that we hold dear to our hearts, and that is, everybody ought to be free. I want to repeat what I said during my State of the Union to you. Liberty is not America's gift to the world. What we believe strongly, and what we hold dear, is liberty is God's gift to mankind." -- George W. Bush - February 10th, 2003 (Remarks at "Congress of Tomorrow" reception)

• "Action to remove the threat from Iraq would also allow the Iraqi people to build a better future for their society. And Iraq's liberation would be the beginning, not the end, of our commitment to its people." -- George W. Bush - March 16th, 2003 (Press Conference)

• "My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.
  
  
  
  To all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces now in the Middle East, the peace of a troubled world and the hopes of an oppressed people now depend on you." -- George W. Bush - March 19th, 2003 (Address to the Nation)

• "The people who serve in the military are giving their best to this country. We have the responsibility to give them our full support as they fight for the liberty of an oppressed people, for the security of the United States, and for the peace of the world." -- George W. Bush - March 29th, 2003 (Radio Address)

• "As we press on to liberate every corner of Iraq, we are beginning the difficult work of helping Iraqis to build a free and stable country. The immediate tasks involve establishing order, as well as delivering food and water and medicines. We'll help Iraqis to restore electrical power and other basic services. We'll help destroy the former regime's weapons of mass destruction. We'll help the Iraqi people to establish a just and representative government, which respects human rights and adheres to the rule of law. These tasks will take effort, and these tasks will take time. But I have faith in the Iraqi people, and I believe that a free Iraq can be an example of reform and progress to all the Middle East." -- George W. Bush - April 15th, 2003 (Remarks from the Rose Garden)

• "In the new era that is coming to Iraq, your country will no longer be held captive to the will of a cruel dictator. You will be free to build a better life, instead of building more palaces for Saddam and his sons, free to pursue economic prosperity without the hardship of economic sanctions, free to travel and speak your mind, free to join in the political affairs of Iraq. And all the people who make up your country – Kurds, Shi’a, Turkomans, Sunnis, and others – will be free of the terrible persecution that so many have endured. The nightmare that Saddam Hussein has brought to your nation will soon be over. You are a good and gifted people – the heirs of a great civilisation that contributes to all humanity. You deserve better than tyranny and corruption and torture chambers. You deserve to live as free people. And I assure every citizen of Iraq: your nation will soon be free." -- George W. Bush - April 10th, 2003 (Message to the Iraqi people)

Even if we ignore these quotes (and I don't see how we can), you're essentially proposing that we condemn this President in particular for engaging in public relations, even though we all know it's a part of winning public support in any matter. That would be moving the goal posts.

The words I see prior to the invasion are "liberty" and "freedom." Not exactly the same as "establishing a democratic government." The thrust becomes closer to "establishing a democracy" AFTER the invasion of March 03.


If you heard "We're going to Iraq to establish democracy there", you heard it differently than me. In the Fall of 02 and early 03, I heard day after day about WMD and nuclear potential. Rice and Powell had much to say about WMD and the spectre of mushroom clouds. I can't recall a thing about democracy.


These are perfectly good questions (though I don't see much basis for the cynical conclusion you've come to). The problem is, questions like these have scared us away from confronting dictators like Hussein for decades. We've been choosing the relative stability of dictators over the uncertainty of nation-building and democracy. As you mention earlier in your post, we've sided with them out of convenience out of the past. Clearly, you don't think much of that. But you think even less of siding against them.



I think less of hypocrisy. It's hypocrisy to align with a brutal dictator, help supply him with weapons, do nothing while he uses them and then become outraged 20 years later.


The immorality of doing nothing in the 80s while Saddam used chemical weapons wasn't really immorality and the "compassion" of confronting Saddam in 2003 wasn't really compassion. Both were political expediency. But it's always a plus when political motive can be dressed up in the guise of compassion.


So what would you have done, exactly? It's easy to point at the action and the suffering that has resulted. It's not as easy to remember that inaction had brought suffering for a decade before that.

There is suffering all over the world. Why Iraq? Why did Iraq open up our floodgates of compassion and prompt a desire to be its savior? Compassion is a wonderful thing but self interest is a stronger thing. I believe the invasion of Iraq was motivated by self interest, disguised as compassion and the whole thing backfired. If there had been more honesty and less deception to begin with, it might never have happened.

There is no reasonable definition of the word "imperialism" that this action would fall under, unless you believe that we do not, in fact, plan to leave, even if and when Iraq's security has improved.



I don't believe Bush plans to leave. Unless prior to the 06 or 08 elections, he hangs a Mission Accomplished sign in the oval office, declares victory and withdraws the troops. And shortly thereafter, there's full scale civil war in Iraq.


But I don't believe that will happen. I don't believe our reason for invasion was WMD or bringing democracy to Iraq. Our reason was a greater self interest than either of those. Whether it's strategic location, oil or making Iraq our easternmost state; this Administration isn't telling.

__________________
My name is Maximus Decimus Meridius, commander of the Armies of the North, General of the Felix Legions, loyal servant to the true emperor, Marcus Aurelius. Father to a murdered son, husband to a murdered wife. And I will have my vengeance, in this life or the next.

He's actually stated as such, that withdrawing troops is for another president to decide. We're in this till at least 2008.

__________________
"You, me, everyone...we are all made of star stuff." - Neil Degrasse Tyson

https://shawnsmovienight.blogspot.com/

great post, especially since it's all true, as most people see it in the old world.
bravo.

Wrong..........yes.............wrong. Hope to chime in more in detail soon, but this is a load of Sh** and excuse me it is also nothing more than hating.

__________________

“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton

Needless to say, I'll be looking forward to your input.

to put myself on your level, what YOU say is a load of *****.
what else is the opposite of the opinions you pretend to contradict, than:
- Iraq doesn't have lots of oil
- Iraq is not a strategic location
- in the 9/11 events, there were no Saoudarabians involved at all, they were all Iraqis
- the US never acts after its own interests

what else than a load of *****? and who's full of hate here (toward anyone not agreeing with your sacred war!)? introspection cannot be sold in pills, a shame for you

Youch, harsh on the last part there froggy.

---

Here's an interesting article from The Economist, looking at the state of Iraq after 3 years:

'Murder is certain'

You can probably tell from the title that their assessment is not entirely favourable, altho it's not entirely damning either. Here are some not-so-tasty quotes that summarise some of the problem areas as they stand...

And on that last point, the anecdotal example of an Iraqi linking the Mahdi ("a mythical figure who, it is prophesied, will lead Muslims to conquer the world before the day of judgment") with Muqtada al-Sadr was intriguing. If only coz it actually suggests one way in which Iraqis might form a majority pact, and sense of purpose. (Just not a particularly 'pretty' one.)

---

Thought i'd return to this. I think the reasons why we don't discuss it are clear. Because we can't discuss two of its fundamental 'mysteries' IE...

Why the occupation was instigated, and how it will 'end'.

Successful empires have always sought to expand their market dominance, ensure their security and spread a version of their own culture. The modern US is no different to past empires in these regards.

The fact of the matter, tho, is that 'Imperialism' ain't what it used to be. A dominant power can now achieve a strong hold over other nations without recourse to invasion. Take Chile as the classic example: The US clearly placed Pinochet at the helm and 'directed' Chile's economic policy etc from that point onwards. Why bother with the expense of taking over a country when you can get it to 'reform' itself in this way?

As we've discussed before, there's pros and cons to this - just as every Empire before it, the US provides numerous levels of stability that benefit the countries over which it 'holds sway'. But that doesn't mean that every intervention should be smiled upon, from the more ghostly Chilean affairs, to up-to-the-armpits efforts like Iraq.

The influence Froggy described actually negates the idea of of self-determined democracy on many levels. Problematic no? And given that a major issue in the Middle East is a feeling of being unable to determine their own destiny - a Muslim destiny for the most part - you can see how such influence could be highly counterproductive - and make the peace that might accompany a balanced democracy even harder to come by.

And the torture and killing ain't done yet. Let's hope that's achieved, but it's not there yet.

that's exactly the perfect definition of what people like myself struggle for, and what, all over the world, imperialistic states (US the most powerful among them, hence the worst presently, but Russia, China, France in its history till today, Spain and in a minor measure, all the big states, are not much better - difference is, they often don't have the means) aim to not allow to other, smaller, nations.
great post Golgot.

"The ony way to put an end to the Iraqi war is to put it on NBC"

- Dave Letterman

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

You win, saying something is bogus, even in colorful terms, means I am full of hate. The situation in Iraq presently and in the past has been a large part of my life directly. I find my time online is dwindling a lot as of late so sorry if my short quip upset you is was not meant to be personal, just my opinion with what time I had at that moment to respond. I wanted to debate some more, but I am out of pills, gotta go get a refill.

Heh, i don't know if my idealism stops short of that or goes beyond it (xcuse my patrionisation ). I think 'self'-expression of that nature is definitely feasible, but can never survive-diverse via the mini-state route which appeals to you

Which is why it's ironic that i batter on Yods's optimistic door, coz really all that annoys me about the Iraq-dance is the ineptness of its conception, not the potential outcome of partial self-representation.

Did my poem make sense?



Take the red pill, no, the blue, no wait, the...

Come back and talk damn you

And even if you don't, i'm loving the new Av in the meantime (How long'd you take picking that out? )

:EDIT: - Dyammit, you changed it! I may have to punish you with a cat for this...

is it too foolish to say that the current situation in Iraq is for the most part, the fault of Iraqis themselves? from what i hear on the news every day, it's the Shiites killing the Sunni Muslims and vice versa. the Americans are killing very few innocent Iraqis, comparatively i mean....so, i see nothing but violence in that country in the future, those people are loco man....loco...

oh, also, aside from the oil, i think the other two reasons for the invasion were so it seems Bush is doing something to make the world a safer place for americans ( even though Iraq posed no real threat to america's national security ), and reason number two, the U.S. has a massive weapons industry, those weapons have to be spent somewhere to keep it all moving and earning cash....

also, the man is just plum trigger happy:
Bush "bend over or i'll invade your country"
Saddam "what?? i will not bend over"
Bush "bend over or i'll invade your country"
Saddam "what ever man, i'm not bending over"
Bush ...*invades iraq and leads thousands of americans to their deaths for no valid reason what so ever, just like vietnam*

let the hate fest begin...*runs*

p.s. my eloquence is legendary isn't it?

__________________
http://www.last.fm/user/diezelpower/

More like non-existent.....