You certainly haven't had a problem supporting destabilization up to this point, starting with the initial invasion and every other step along the way. Now you think the guy who caused all the destabilization in the first place now has the right answer to fix it. Do you know the definition of the word "insanity"?

Seriously, doesn't being wrong all this time about everything to do with Iraq give you even the slightest moment's pause?

Ummm but thats whats happening now even with the troops there. The US army is stuck in something that has nothing to do with them, theres a serious battle for the heart of Arabia going on at the moment and its there concern not America's. Its a bit like the US sticking their nose into the Vietnamese civil war in a way, none of their business.

EDIT: the whole Iranian's taking over arguement doesn't work either as the Saudi's and Kuwait's would side against them in the battle for control.

I support what I feel was the correct decision, I sleep just fine at night.

The only problems I have with the Iraq war are the lack of planning that went on after it's execution. There was no plan following the war, and that was what led us into this mess.

We mistakenly thought the country would stabilize itself (for what reason people thought this I have no idea), and we are paying for it now. There is no doubt attacking Iraq slightly destabilized the region, but in the end, the Iraqi people have every right to be free and live life out of the shadow of an oppressive dictator.

The Iraqi people are in a giant religious mess, and I think we owe them to help as much as possible rather than simply leaving them to rot. We have to try to at least give them a fighting chance.

See, Eagle? Are you going to "ignore" everyone who is simply pointing out reality to you? I understand the warmth of the sand you have your head stuck in, but sooner or later you have to come up for air.

I agree that we should help the Iraqi people have a stable government.

I have yet to see how sending more troops there to die will accomplish that.

Of course you do. Because like all right-wingers, you ignore reality, personal responsibility (while paying empty rhetorical lip-service to it), accountability, and any admission whatsoever that you were wrong, wrong, wrong.

The troops aren't sleeping too well, but hey as long as you're comfortable with Bush's fucked up mess that you supported, then why should you care?



And naturally, according to you, we should keep listening to the guy responsible for it.

I'm not sure it will, but I think it offers a better chance than a phased withdrawal.

Wow Beeble... I don't think you could be more of an asshole.

Maybe we should just stay out of foreign affairs altogether and build a giant wall around America that way nobody will get mad at us...

Boo fucking hoo... You're obviously not looking towards the future as you keep complaining about the past.

I can't imagine why, and I mean no disrespect. Doing the same thing we have been doing won't solve the problem; I mean, how long should we keep doing something that has gained nothing?

You will never change people's minds through gunfire, and that's the thing that has to change.

I think this Doonesbury cartoon from last Sunday kind of sums up the problem:

Yeah, I understand exactly where your coming from, and it's a question that really has no viable answer.


I mean, I don't think taking troops out of Iraq will do anything but allow the terrorist cells to set up camp in major cities, leave us without the manpower to deal with them, force us to abandon many cities, and get the eventual civil war started.

The reason I think a burst increase in troops will help is that it does give us added manpower in the hot-beds of insurgency. It's only temporary, and I can't see it stopping a civil war, but at least it gives the Iraq army more time to become properly trained and able to attempt to defend their own country.

Does the Iraq army and current government deserve that chance? I'm not sure, but their people do.

Yep, certainly not the guy who sleeps well at night despite supporting a war that is killing troops for no reason and who thinks we should send MORE troops to die in his place.



Criticizing the reasons for the war and its execution and arguing for a change in leadership and direction have NOTHING to do with isolationism.



Well, that's certainly a stupid way of looking at criticism of the war. How else do you fix the problem without looking at what mistakes were made and how they were made?

Or do you not consider criticism of the war to be even a valid point of discussion?

It takes forty years..

There are three generations in society.. Child, parent, grandparent.. Grand-parents have a large influence in many societies.. To affect a permanent change, say democracy, a nation's people need to be influenced for two cycles or generations.. An average generation is about 23 years(less in the third world, higher in the 'west').. It's a forty year process to affect permanent change... India is an example... At least forty years...

Any questions of how America ended up in such a mess are answered by the above...

Your statement doesn't make sense...

America ended up in a mess because people can't decide on what they want. They don't think ahead

A very good point.

Predicting the outcome of any given policy is certainly an inexact science. But the question is whether or not we keep listening to the people who've consistently gotten it wrong, which you think we should do, or start listening to the people who've been mostly right the whole time.

Doonesbury above, doesn't agree...

That's part of it, but I think my theory hits closer to the heart of the problem -- America is the world's police force, and if the world doesn't appreciate being policed (on western standards) then ChipMunky's eloquence stands...

True... We're failing...
This film exposes a similar arc..........
75% supported the war at the start... Now it's 25%...
So 50% have reversed their positions..
Too glib to begin with....... It takes two generations to change culture... Forty years...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'give 'm a taste of the olde shillayhi'... replace it... with SOV....
please go see this movie...

IMO you focus far to much on blame, and way to little on answers. Which is fine, that's the way politics work, but I could care less about politics, I only want to find the best way out of the situation while not screwing over the Iraqi people.

America is in this mess because the administration sold a war to the American people based on flimsy premises that have all turned out to be false, both by deliberate manipulation and by a total lack of understanding about the region they invaded. They got every single prediction wrong. From the insurgency to the reaction to their own torture policies to the reception from the people in the streets. They have fucked it up in almost every way it could be fucked up.

Don't try and protect the American people from their stupidity.

Disagree.. He mainly reflects characters, not beliefs.. He's an anarchist.. Doubt you could get him to agree to your statement..
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" 'just curious, teddy, new orleans' "......... GT.........

Focusing on the blame in this case is important because, I repeat, you think that the person who has been wrong every single step of the way has the right solution to the current problem, the problem that HE created in the first place.

I ask again, doesn't being wrong in any way chasten you to think for even one second that you might have it wrong this time, as you've been wrong all along? Obviously not. And the president's similar mentality is what's wrong with Iraq.

As for answers, I think plenty of people have proposed several viable options. I think phased withdrawal accomplishes the least loss based on what is generally considered to be the inevitable outcome in Iraq - civil war. A withdrawal might allow it to happen sooner, but it's happening anyway and we don't want our troops in the middle of it.

You could also facilitate the division of the country into three countries of Shia, Kurds, and Sunni. Establish borders and regional governments and help move the factions into their own autonomous borders.

If escalation does happen, then Bush has picked just about the worst way to implement it (Surprise! And you support him on it, Surprise again!). 20-40K troops does nothing. You need to double the troop strength to have any effect on the insurgency, and even that probably wouldn't prevent a civil war.

Heh! You really don't believe his "1387" comment was a statement on the difference between how America's short-sighted view of 2-3 generations differs from how an ancient culture such as Iraq views change over time?