Re question about Iraq

It was a good thing to do, but not for some of the reasons Bush had. That is, the best reaosns for going to war were not the ones articulated. It wound up being a biut of mess at the end as we didn’t achieve what we could have. But there is still a lot of hope.

It is looking increasingly likely that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction at the time these were being used as the main justification for an invasion, or that if it did there were not enough of them actually to threaten the destruction of any masses. If so, this is a heavy blow to American/British government credibility. This seems to be a fairly large cost of the war. Also I have the impression that the post-war occupation forces don’t have much idea what they are doing, and that the Iraqis are not inclined to pro-Americanism as a result of the war; though this impression may reflect media distortions for all I know.

Doesnt it depend on who you are?I mean,it was good for Mr Bush( Popularity,Oil, Power in Middle East,)It was good for Israel(lots of dead Muslims)It was bad for the Iraq people (becoming part of The American Empire).

Jonathan Foreman of the New York Post, who has been in Iraq since the start of the war, wrote a couple of weeks ago that the major media were concealing how happy and grateful most Iraqis were toward the Americans. But later he wrote very worriedly that the U.S. was failing to impose order on the country, mainly out of a liberal imperative to avoid seeming like an occupation, and that as a result chaos was taking over, which would turn the Iraqis against the U.S. if order was not restored soon.

In this connection, Jim Hoagland has a very troubling article in today’s Washington Post saying that “The war isn’t over.” Ba’athist forces are re-organizing to fight the Coalition forces and people are afraid that Hussein may not be dead. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23628-2003May21.html?nav=hptoc_eo

A glorious victory followed by an inglorious exit is what is likely to follow. The Arab world is a couldron that requires firmer resolve than the United States is likely to show (in the long term, winning a quick war against a vastly inferior enemy is a different matter compared to continuing in occupation against a hostile population in a generally hostile environment). Preaching that Islam is “a religion of peace” and that Iraq must be a “democracy” is likely to bring about the downfall faster.

“The Arab world is a couldron that requires firmer resolve than the United States is likely to show”. I hope you admit that you said this when Bush kicks Iran’s, Syria’s, and Saudi Arabia’s asses in his second term. Watch.

Since there is already plenty of distrust of Bush around here, let’s speculate on what his intentions could actually be for picking Iraq over, say, North Korea or Pakistan. While Pakistan and North Korea may have nukes, they are being much more closely watched by India and Japan, respectively, and are not just one of many countries in a region entirely made up of nations with strong anti-US sentiment. Iraq has much strategic long-term value, when one faces that fact that it is only a matter of time before the nutcases in Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia must either change their ways of ruling so drastically as to render them unrecognizable, or be removed. Iraq is in right in the middle of this entire mess, and not only serves a good springboard to launch future offensive maneuvers but also cuts off the road between the majority of the Middle East and the Palestinian terrorists. Thus, Bush has killed about 42 birds with one stone in his invasion of Iraq.

right on daugherty, i’m right behind you, those muslims are all animals fit only for the slaughter. i can’t wait for president bush to find our wmd and put them to good use on those towel heads.

this is an example of smearing by over agreement. although there are surely a few nutballs out there who probably think what i wrote, it’s pretty obvious for what it is.

negroids are non-human beasts fits this method of attack.