<p>A smart person would have looked ahead and figured out what replaced Saddam before invading. Of course, Bushco believed Chalabi telling them what they wanted to hear.</p>
<p>One of the greatest of Bush’s sins was palming off invading Iraq as response to 9/11. I believe he deserves to fry in Hell for that, but such judgment is not allocated to me. He can take Cheney, Feith, and the rest of the neocon crew with him. Maybe he can trade notes with Joe Stalin about the “unitary executive.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A simple question:</p>
<p>How long are you prepared to commit substantially all of our available Army combat troops and $10 billion a month in Iraq?</p>
<p>Three more years? Six more years? Ten more years? Fifty years?</p>
<p>Is there any point where you say “enough is enough”?</p>
<p>Enough about Foreign Policy.</p>
<p>What about the erosion of civil liberties at home? The suspension of habeas corpus for non-citizen terror suspects, domestic surveillance, expanded search and seizure, erosion of expectations of privacy, unchecked expansion of executive power, etc. etc.</p>
<p>Add the total disdain and contempt for environmental protection, the use of the federal government as a reward/punishment system for political allies/foes (see Cunningham, Abramhoff, et alia)…</p>
<p>The Bush administration is, as they say in the military, a target rich environment. It’s a worse presidency than those of Grant, Buchanan, Harding, Hoover, and Nixon.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Some people appear to be bleeding more rapidly than others. It is remarkable that you think this is an acceptable outcome of “the loyal Bushies” neocon regime-change wet-dream fantasy.</p>
<p>In all honesty, even though I think the original invasion was a horrible idea, it would be morally irresponsible for us to leave Iraq now just because our casualty count continues to rise.</p>
<p>Like it or not, we have a duty to the Iraqi people now to return the country to some state of stability, and not just by letting one sect run rampant and set up the type of autocratic/theocratic government they would want.</p>
<p>“The war won’t end when we cut and run only the battlefield will change.”</p>
<p>REALLY? What, are they exceptional swimmers? </p>
<p>It’s one thing when a sucide bomber can get up, have breakfast and walk to the marketplace and set himself off. It’s another to find the money, get the passports, get on a flight, go through customs, and do it here. All we’ve done is make it easy for joe average terrorist to kill Americans.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We’ve already determined that the Bush war policy is morally reprehensible.</p>
<p>The question is: How many more year are you willing to commit virtually all of the US Army combat troops and $10 billion a month to the Iraq civil war?</p>
<p>Three more years? Five more years? Ten more years? Is there any point where you would say enough is enough?</p>
<p>Yes, the start of the war was morally reprehensible, but to leave now would be just as much so.</p>
<p>We made a mess in Iraq, and when one makes a mess one should clean it up. Even if it is a civil war now, the United States clearly has some responsibility for the start of the civil war.</p>
<p>3 years, 5 years, 10 years? Who knows, we have a duty to stay in until we’ve cleaned up our mess. And the fact that Bush got us into this mess is one part of why his will be remembered as such a disastrous presidency</p>
<p>
When do you plan on enlisting?</p>
<p>Right after Jenna</p>
<p>“Right after Jenna”</p>
<p>So your moral responsibility extends only as far as your keyboard?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When I use the first person plural, I’m referring to America as an actor, not the individual actions of Americans. As an individual, I’m pretty sure I’m not responsible for Iraq being a mess. As a country, America is, and I’m not sure how the armed forces are selected is terribly relevant to the question at hand.</p>
<p>It’s an interesting question, but one that should be considered separately from the question of whether or not America has a duty to clean up the mess it’s made in Iraq.</p>
<p>“It’s an interesting question, but one that should be considered separately from the question of whether or not America has a duty to clean up the mess it’s made in Iraq.”</p>
<p>No it’s not. If your support extends only to rhetoric, then just how deeply do you really believe in what you advocate? It’s easy to be courageous about other men’s lives. Your opinion would actually mean something if you were posting from your base in Iraq where we loose about twenty men a week. But that takes an entirely different sort of courage.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s too bad the U.S. didn’t have you around to sit down and have a chat with FDR. :)</p>
<p>So you support sending out sons and daughters to be sitting targets while nothing changes (or it gets worse)? It would seem that a rational person would have one of two choices: First choice: Leave (now). Second choice: Provide enough troops to do a Germans-in-France-WWII-type repressive occupation to quell what violence we could (knowing there will always be a resistance movement). </p>
<p>IF you truly believe that we cannot leave until the civil war and violence go away, then the second choice is your only choice. Let’s re-start the draft, significantly raise taxes, and go at it (and probably have the regional conflict explode into a global one). </p>
<p>It makes no sense whatsoever to provide our children as the ducks in a shooting gallery because “We started it; we can’t leave.”</p>
<p>I wanted the war in Viet Nam to end, and led a small anti-war group. But never did I support anything which bashed the returning troops, nor did I even support the chant “Hey, hey, LBJ, How many kids did you kill today.” But I lay responsibility for this war’s wasted lives directly at the feet of the Bush administration. </p>
<p>And even more reprehensible is the administration’s attempt to shield the public from the costs. Increasing war costs? Hey, print more money and pass out tax cuts to the fat cats and keep the middle class from being too dissatisfied. Don’t class a soldier who lost a leg as “disabled.” It’ll cost too much money. Slow down the delivery of veteran’s benefits. Charge wounded soldiers for their hospital meals because thay are no longer in a war zone. We don’t want to do anything to lose even a single vote. Even if conducting this war with minimal troops means more deaths. </p>
<p>Reprehensible? It’s staring us in the face.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, you are willing to destroy our military, endure thousands more fatalities and tens of thousands of injuried, and cripple the US economically to stay the course for another decade?</p>
<p>Seriously?</p>
<p>
If GWB had been President in Dec. 1941 we would have invaded Venezuela.</p>
<p>“It’s too bad the U.S. didn’t have you around to sit down and have a chat with FDR.”</p>
<p>Unless I misunderstand your meaning, under the circumstances (WWII) I think he did the right thing.</p>
<p>Is that where you’re posting from WPSON?</p>
<p>And why should only people who are posting from Iraq have their views counted? Sure they’re the ones who have to deal with war most often, but that doesn’t mean others can’t make valid arguments. Proximity to Iraq, or to someone who has been affected by Iraq doesn’t make an argument anymore valid. They still have to stand on their own right.</p>
<p>Please address my argument and not your opinion on my conviction or lack of conviction, courage or lack of courage.</p>
<p>America made a mess in Iraq. When you make a mess, you clean it up. That’s called taking responsibility for yourself.</p>
<p>The original decision to go to war has a horrible, horrible mistake. But deciding to pull out now would also be a mistake.</p>
<hr>
<p>As an aside, I hate how when people talk about the cost of the Iraq War, the only figure that matters is the number of American deaths. Why is the life of an American soldier more valued than the life an Iraqi? If by staying in Iraq, American soldiers can save Iraqi lives by preventing a full scale civil war from breaking out, then that’s another argument to stay in Iraq. The interesting figure here then, would be: will the end total death count, American and Iraqi, be higher with the U.S. running intermediation between sects, or will it be higher in an extremely bloody, though likely shorter civil war.</p>