<p>The chaos is going to happen whether we are there or not.</p>
<p>So let them kill each other.</p>
<p>Even with a callous disregard for life such as this, the long term impact for the US and the West of a failed effort in Iraq will be very considerable.</p>
<p>Not a matter of “if” we will leave Iraq (despite our permanent military bases) or even “when”, but “how soon”. </p>
<p>We <em>are</em> leaving, and no bravado on the part of your man Bush can change the facts that this war has been a debacle from the get go.</p>
<p>“the long term impact for the US and the West of a failed effort in Iraq will be very considerable.”</p>
<p>There is a possiblity that the long term impact will be less if we pull out than if we stay.</p>
<p>Have you looked at our trade deficit lately? We are not even going to own our own country in 30 years. And don’t believe me, if you are interested, there is plenty of information out there for you to read.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, there is that possibility, yet none of the reports from those who have been chartered to look at the situation come to that conclusion. So, who to believe? As far as the economic impact - I don’t think we want to sacrifice our security based on its economic impact.</p>
<p>If you don’t control yourself economically, you have no security.</p>
<p>The effort in Iraq HAS failed, and the short- and long-term impact for the US and the West will be very considerable. The only question worth asking is whether anything will mitigate the damage. It IS worth asking that question, but often it seems that the only questions Bush is asking are “How do I avoid admitting defeat during my Presidency?” and “Can I do that without handing the next election to the Democrats?”</p>
<p>“fundingfather, does reality ever matter to you? There were no WMDs.”</p>
<p>But we have the reciepts! :)</p>
<p>As I sit 30 miles away from the largest single concentration of nukes in the world and a couple hundred miles from one of the largest chemical weapons disposal plants holding some of the worlds largest stockpiles of chemical artilery rounds and bombs I wonder if we didn’t have so many and rattle our sabares so much with this administration would we have the problems we do now. We’ve spread fear more in the last six years than the 25 prior, even with repubs in office. This administration scares the world and fear drives alot of these actions by other countries.</p>
<p>We need to rediscover ping pong dipolmacy before it’s too late.</p>
<p>
I guess FDR did a quick business case after 12/7 but before he went before Congress and requested a declaration of war.</p>
<p>
The same feeling of hopelessness existed in Vietnam when in reality the opposite was the case. The problem with that war was that the feeling of despair found its way to Congress and they made sure that we did lose.</p>
<p>
Yeah, it’s because we didn’t play enough ping-pong with Osama that he decided to attack us. It’s always our fault.</p>
<p>Gee, I wonder if Hillary will take back that big wet kiss she gave to Bob Gates at the confirmation hearings after she hears this:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>fundingfather: I actually agree with you that Vietnam in the early 70s was in much better shape than Iraq is now. But I’ve never seen anything to suggest that we were ever at the threshold of victory, or that the South Vietnamese government was going to be able to sustain itself semi-permanently without massive commitment of US troops. And, notwithstanding the trauma and horrors of the fall of Saigon and the killing fields in Cambodia, I suspect Vietnam is infinitely better off today than it would have been if we had stayed and continued to fight, bomb, and burn indefinitely. A “Vietnam” outcome for Iraq 30 years from now would be a dream. (Edit to make clear that I’m not sanguine about getting that kind of outcome from a withdrawal.)</p>
<p>FF - do you honestly believe that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq would have been able to successfully produce an atomic bomb? I don’t mean scientists telling Saddam that they were that close to it, or flunkies floundering around looking for uranium ore - I mean actually producing a functioning atomic bomb? I know it’s the last of a dwindling list of feeble excuses for the war, but there is absolutely nothing that has turned up in Iraq since the war that remotely suggests that the Hussein regime had the degree of organization required to actually accomplish any even slightly sophisticated tasks - a status that most despotic regimes devolve to sooner or later. Saddam could have wanted nukes all he liked - he didn’t realistically have the means to produce them.</p>
<p>kluge,</p>
<p>Perhaps you missed this:
<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/middleeast/03documents.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5090&en=ba99ceafb0f67900&ex=1320210000[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/middleeast/03documents.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5090&en=ba99ceafb0f67900&ex=1320210000</a></p>
<p>Bottom line: the IAEA grossly under-estimated Iraqs progress towards nuclear weapons in 1991. Not only was his capability advanced, but it was much further along than what Iran’s effort is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s because the media and the left went into self-congratulatory mode for getting us out of Vietnam . The reality is that “Vietnamization” of the war was affective and we were able to withdraw most of our troops according to the Paris accords. Unfortunately, the N. Vietnamese decided to test our willingness to back up the treaty. When they saw that we would not come to the support of the S. Vietnamese, even with any air support, they massed a massive traditional invasion with full support from their Soviet and Chinese allies - one which we would have played into our strength and would have resulted in a decisive and war-ending victory. Instead, the S. Vietnamese were rounded up and slaughtered.</p>
<p>What is really ironic, I saw an interview with the noted foreign affairs analyst and military historian, Ted Kennedy. He was asked if we abandoned Iraq wouldn’t there be a bloodbath. His response was, “They said the same thing about Vietnam and there was no blood bath.” The sad thing is that he probably actually believes that bit of sanitized fiction that the left seems to thrive on.</p>
<p>“I guess FDR did a quick business case after 12/7 but before he went before Congress and requested a declaration of war.”</p>
<p>I see. You are equating WWII with Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction.</p>
<p>It’s been 3 1/2 years. Might be time reevaluate.</p>
<p>“if we didn’t have so many and rattle our sabares so much with this administration would we have the problems we do now. We’ve spread fear more in the last six years than the 25 prior…This administration scares the world and fear drives alot of these actions by other countries.”</p>
<p>Exactly. The US has become the new USSR.</p>
<hr>
<p>(not sure what you meant by ‘even with repubs in office’ though)</p>
<p>I certainly do equate te war on terror in its totality with WWII. Certainly from an immediate threat to the US homeland, the war on terror if it is ever allowed to escalate to nuclear - or biological, could be significantly more devasting to the US than WWII.</p>
<p>FF - you mean
?</p>
<p>Understanding the theory is one thing. Actually doing the work to build one is another. More scare tactics.</p>
<p>Yeah, the IAEA is well known for its use of scare tactics</p>
<p>fundingfather, if our friends, the French, the Russians and the Chinese would stop supplying nuclear know-how to other countries, other countries would have a hard time becoming nuclear powers. However, if the French, the Russians, and the Chinese don’t stop, we are going to have a hard time stopping other countries from becoming nuclear powers.</p>
<p>What we are doing in Iraq isn’t going to stop terrorism or other countries from becoming nuclear powers.</p>
<p>So let’s start saving the next trillion dollars and get out.</p>