March 16, 2009

"Dramatic advances in public attitudes are sweeping Iraq..."

"... with declining violence, rising economic well-being and improved services lifting optimism, fueling confidence in public institutions and bolstering support for democracy."

67 comments:

David said...

It's Bush's fault.

fcai said...

According to many here we lost that war. I wonder what victory would look like.

Jason said...

The war is lost!!! A disaster! The worst foreign policy catastrophe in our nation's history!

Invisible Man said...

We wouldn't want to see that in the US. That's S-O-C-I-A-L-I-S-M. SPENDING FREEZES AND TAX CUTS OWNARD!

Michael Hasenstab said...

Victory is a horrible burden, and a mistake not likely to be made again during the next four years.

PatCA said...

It's amazing how Obama turned this around, isn't it?

The Drill SGT said...

fcai said...
According to many here we lost that war. I wonder what victory would look like.



I don't remember who said it, in which century, but some general once said (paraphrased)...

The only thing uglier than a battle won, is a battle lost...

I think we won this one, but it wasn't neat and tidy like Rummy promised. However, like McCain said, once you're in, you gotta win.

Bissage said...

A sheep’s head in every pot!

Allah be praised!

Pacha be braised!

Lem said...

Obama ran on exactly what he contemptibly disparaged, over and over, for the people of Iraq.

Hope and change.

Now that he is the president and Iraq is free, you have to wonder what the "change" mantra was really about. Other contempt for our way of life.

cokaygne said...

It happened on Obama's watch.

E.B. Gray said...

Since none of the commenters above, or Ann herself, can be bothered to read an entire article, I'll let you know what you're missing: (1)a majority of Iraqi's still think we should never have invaded, (2) there is deep resentment about the violence we caused; read: they hate us, and (3) they wish we would leave quicker than Obama's accelerated timetable--the timetable that Althouse has objected to. But apparently none of those views merit recognition around here.

Lem said...

It happened on Obama's watch.

Yea.. that was a great shuttle launch last night.
I’m not going to take that one away from the One. Another first ;)

Hoosier Daddy said...

I'll let you know what you're missing: (1)a majority of Iraqi's still think we should never have invaded, (2) there is deep resentment about the violence we caused; read: they hate us, and (3) they wish we would leave quicker than Obama's accelerated timetable

(1) I agree considering they clearly demonstrated a perference over a despotic dictator whose idea of due process were sticking the accused in industrial paper shredders.

(2)It takes balls the size of a camel to say that we caused them to turn on each other like rats in a sinking ship. Then again it speaks volumes about the social and political maturity of the Iraqis.

(3)Fine with me just chalk it up to another of Obama's lies to end the war.

Hoosier Daddy said...

It's amazing how Obama turned this around, isn't it?


But he's losing Mexico.

garage mahal said...

Either you went along with Bush or you loved Saddah Hussein and those Instapundit human shredders we never found.

Lem said...

If they wanted Saddam back so badly why did they hang him?

Why did they risked death and voted on election day, in higher per capita numbers than our own elections when Al Qaeda had clearly threatened them?

Clearly the actions of the Iraqis speak louder than these alleged grievances.

Hoosier Daddy said...

If they wanted Saddam back so badly why did they hang him?

Wrongly convincted by a kangaroo court and it was only by a few hate filled Shiites who thought Saddam was just being mean to them.

Saddam was a benevolent, gracious leader who loved children, wrote beautiful romance novels and enjoyed broad support among the peace loving Iraqi people clearly evidenced by his continued re-election of 100% of the Iraqi electorate.

Maguro said...

The only thing uglier than a battle won, is a battle lost...

I remember the Duke of Wellington (Christopher Plummer) saying something like that in the movie Waterloo but he had "won" and "lost" reversed.

Tibore said...

"The Drill SGT said...
I don't remember who said it, in which century, but some general once said (paraphrased)...


The only thing uglier than a battle won, is a battle lost..."

That's commonly attributed to the Duke of Wellington, from a letter he wrote during the Battle of Waterloo. The more I read about him, the more I like him. He seemed willing to display a most odd sense of humor on occasion:


Uxbridge: By God, sir, I've lost my leg!
Wellington: By God, sir, so you have!

Tibore said...

Blah! Maguro beat me to it!

(*Grumble*)...

rdkraus said...

Thanks HD, I needed that.

On victory in general, may I respectfully say it might be a good idea to wait a few years before drawing any firm conclusions, or maybe a few years after US troops are out.

Just sayin.

rdkraus said...

I mean, look at this:

Police say an Iraqi soccer player has been shot dead just as he was about to kick what could have been the tying goal in a weekend game south of Baghdad.

Police Maj. Muthanna Khalid says a striker from the Buhairat amateur team was facing only the goalie during a Sunday match in Hillah when a supporter of the rival Sinjar club shot him in the head in the final minute of play.


See?

Trevor Jackson said...

Wishing the U.S. had never invaded does not equal wanting Saddam back. Ask an Iraqi who lost a child in the last six years or a refugee who doesn't even know if the rest of his family is still alive this bullshit false choice.

Anybody want to guess what these public opinion polls would look like if a President McCain had wriggled out of the SOFA and its 2011 withdrawal deadline?

Remember when leaving = losing? Not now. No, now that Iraqis are happy that they don't have as much shit to filter out of their water means the war was the best thing that ever happened to them.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I remember the Duke of Wellington (Christopher Plummer) saying something like that in the movie Waterloo but he had "won" and "lost" reversed.

What a classic movie. Supposedly there's a fair amount of 'lost footage' but I dunno if that's a myth or what.

Lots of good quotes in that movie.

Lord Gordon Good beans, Wellington!

Duke of WellingtonIf there is anything in this world about which I know positively nothing, it is agriculture.

DrouotThe Prussians are in the woods! Blucher is in the woods!

Napoleon I made one mistake in my life. I should have burned Berlin.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Wishing the U.S. had never invaded does not equal wanting Saddam back.

That's rather like wanting your cake and eating it too isn't it?

Trevor Jackson said...

Not if there's another way to get a cake that's just as tasty as the one that kills your family if you eat it.

IOW, was invasion the only way to establish democracy?

Issob Morocco said...

Hi Trevor,

"IOW, was invasion the only way to establish democracy?"

Good question, I will be happy to answer if you will do the same.

My opinion is that given the brutal, militaristic regime that was Saddam, democracy in Iraq without his removal and dismantling of the thugocracy, would be akin to planting wheat at the 11,000 foot altitudes in the Rockies. It would not take root, much less find a fertile place to grow.

Dissenters were killed or exiled, remaining families tormented and no one felt that they could cross a street without potential for serious reprecussions.

As such conflict was the only way to bring democracy by resolving the issue of Saddam.

Now, if you feel the opposite, please explain how and why the other ways would have worked better.

Thanks!

Hoosier Daddy said...

Not if there's another way to get a cake that's just as tasty as the one that kills your family if you eat it.

Of course there are always alternatives. It just didn't appear that any existed up to that point considering Saddam's lock on power.

IOW was invasion the only way to establish democracy?

With them? Probably. Then again, I don't have a whole lot of faith in thier form of democracy anyway. To me democracy is more than one man one vote.

Lem said...

Wishing the U.S. had never invaded does not equal wanting Saddam back.

I suppose we could have declared independence from the British and then turned around and surrendered an avoided all the unpleasentries of war.

Lives could have been saved. I tell you, we had some Stupid founders.

Trevor Jackson said...

OK, first let's realize that we're setting something aside. Namely, that the American people were told we were invading to disarm Saddam before he could use WMD against us, just like "his friends" did on 9/11. That, of course, was only the first of many reasons we were given for the invasion. So, if we're going to talk about the humanitarian crisis Saddam posed to his own people and how the U.S. could have gone about "fixing" that problem, we should be clear that "Saddam is bad to his own people" was pretty far down on the list of the reasons for the urgency of the invasion, and certainly not just for the invasion itself.

After that of course it becomes an academic exercise of whether more time before invading and more careful post-invasion planning could have eased the transition, prevented the looting and the violence, kept a lid on ethnic tensions, etc. So, yeah, Issob, maybe as you and Hoosier state, invasion was the only way to take him out.

But maybe my question should have been better phrased: Was this invasion the only way to establish democracy?

Maguro said...

Was this invasion the only way to establish democracy?

Clearly the answer is yes, unless you believe that a UN Resolution or something would have convinced Saddam to abdicate.

Whether you believe that result to be "worth it" is another matter, but I have no doubt that Saddam and his family would still own Iraq today if there had been no invasion.

Trevor Jackson said...

It doesn't matter really whether I believe it or whether some other means might have forced Saddam out. The point is that the majority of Iraqis wish we had never invaded. Whether that means they would prefer to still be living under Saddam is still a false choice. Think about how they can hold those two thoughts in their head: Our invasion and the way the post-invasion was handled and life under Saddam are both really awful things to the average Iraqi.

Hoosier Daddy said...

.... we should be clear that "Saddam is bad to his own people" was pretty far down on the list of the reasons for the urgency of the invasion, and certainly not just for the invasion itself.

I don't disagree.

But maybe my question should have been better phrased: Was this invasion the only way to establish democracy?

I'll say yes again. Barring a visit by the ghosts of Ramadan past, present and future, I doubt Saddam was going to actually allow free and unfettered elections. Sanctions certainly didn't bother him much and Europe was perfectly content with lifting sanctions and welcoming him back to the world community.

The real question should be is whether 'democracy' will actually take root or will they be at each other's throats 5-10 years from now when GI Joe isn't keeping the peace anymore.

Hoosier Daddy said...

. Think about how they can hold those two thoughts in their head: Our invasion and the way the post-invasion was handled and life under Saddam are both really awful things to the average Iraqi.

Well I suppose the biggest error Bush made was not the assumption that we’d be welcomed as liberators but that the Iraqis would not go on a sectarian murder spree. I can understand that the Iraqis may hate us but they have a funny way of showing it when they blow up a market place filled with their own people.

traditionalguy said...

Guess what? There was no reason to whip Saddam, and Al Queada in Iraq 3 years later, except to prove we could do it. The poison pill (to Moslem Facisim) called Democracy was just our parting shot at the Saudi Arabians. The only reason to nuke the Japs was to prove we could do it. What all that Proving got us is a life in a peaceful world. Ignore an agressor and he will kill you. Strike him and he will lose his focus and then fall apart after his winning strategy has been proved to be an impossibility. Now why did Zell Miller leave today's demos and support Bush again? Have a Happy St Patrick's Day.

William said...

The Duke of Wellington believed in flogging long after that practice was condemned by decent people. He thought enlisted men were "scum" and had to be controlled with an iron hand. He did not believe in promoting from the ranks. He chose the best qualified aristocrat whenever possible. Jackson's victory at the Battle of New Orleans was due more to Wellington's idiot brother in law who led the British forces than to Jackson's superior generalship. Wellington was never particularly popular among the literati and the cultured. Napoleon was the man who inspired books and dramas and poetry. Beethoven's Eroica Symphony was originally dedicated to Napoleon. After Wellington's victory at Waterloo, he wrote an orchestral piece for Wellington that is considered by many Beethoven scholars to be as close as Beethoven came to kitsch. Wellington simply did not fire the artistic imagination....All of this proves not Wellington's diminished stature versus Napoleon, but rather the diminished judgement of artists and intellectuals about the truly great men of their era. Consider this: At the Congress of Vienna, it was Wellington over the objections of both the Bonapartists and the Bourbons, who outlawed slavery in the French Empire. During the Peninsular campaign, Wellington several times refused battles he could have won. He thought that the casualties to his men would be unacceptable. Compare that to Napoleon who abandoned armies in Egypt and Russia with a gallic shrug. Wellington felt that being born in Ireland did not make him Irish anymore than being born in a barn would have made him a horse. But for all that he was the one who granted the propertied Catholics suffrage in Ireland--and fought a duel for the trouble of doing so. One could make a long list of humane and wise things that Wellington did and an even longer list of cruel and foolish things that Napoleon did. Nonetheless, Napoleon is played by Marlon Brando and Wellington is played by Christopher Plummer. Even if events vindicate Bush's judgement in Iraq, do not expect him to ever be vindicated by those most outraged in their criticism.

AlphaLiberal said...

There you go again. More selective reporting of Iraq news.

Riddle me this: did they include Iraqi exiles in their survey? There are many.

Funny how many people have fled such a paradise.

traditionalguy said...

Another thought. How did the ABC guys get this story on the air? Until 3 months ago this story would have caused their immediate Termination from ABC News. Are the facts coming out at ABC a sign of something? Of course it's too late to help the Repubs. But still this new style of reporting positive events in Iraq could get out of hand.

Maguro said...

It doesn't matter really whether I believe it or whether some other means might have forced Saddam out. The point is that the majority of Iraqis wish we had never invaded.

If that was your point, you should have said so. You asked whether the invasion was the only way to establish democracy and it is damn hard to see any other way it could have been done.

Again, whether it was worth the cost is another question and we won't really know the answer for at least twenty years.

Hoosier Daddy said...

There you go again. More selective reporting of Iraq news.

Don't get your panties in a bunch Alpha. As another commenter pointed out earlier, the article indicates that the Iraqis still hate our guts and wish the invasion never happened so it's not a total loss for your side.

Jon said...

"a majority of Iraqi's still think we should never have invaded"

A smaller majority than the last poll tho. And some of the 56% who still say they wish we hadn't invaded, are Sunni Arabs, who probably feel that way because our invasion removed them from their privleged status. I'm sure the invasion disapproval numbers are lower among the formerly repressed Shia and Kurdish populations.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Nonetheless, Napoleon is played by Marlon Brando and Wellington is played by Christopher Plummer

Rod Steiger played Napoleon in Waterloo and did an excellent job to boot.

AlphaLiberal said...

More evidence that watching FoxNews can make you misinformed and dumb.

Hoosier Daddy, libs are the ones who have been warning that being invaders, torturers and bullies will make our country hated. Conservatives are the ones embracing, and fomenting, the hatred of the world.

Glad to help you out there.

AlphaLiberal said...

"Victory is a horrible burden,..."

Ri-i-i-ight. That went just according to plan.

If you count ethnic cleansing, forced relocations of civilians and torture as a "victory." Not to mentioned 100s of thousands dead and the people who attacked us on 9/11 still free.

Whatever peace they have is primarily the peace of the graveyard.

Cedarford said...

Trevor - "Was this invasion the only way to establish democracy?"

Maguro - "Clearly the answer is yes, unless you believe that a UN Resolution or something would have convinced Saddam to abdicate."
______________

Pretty accurate. Lefties and the "World Conscience of the UN and Almighty International Law and Human Rights Covenents" have been flailing around for over 20 years on Zimbabwe, about "noble Darfurans" and such.

The only way to get things done in such thugocracies is to arm democratic forces, threaten to invade if the gov't kills or otherwise represses such peaceful still unarmed forces, or you invade and kill the bad guys and their armed thugs.

So we have options past the useless Kofi Annon, George Soros and his "international human rights lawyers" brigades.

We have the option to arm Darfurans. (which the UN frowns on in new belief that small arms are evil and only governemnt people should have them).

We have the option of telling Hugo Chavez that if he kills or oppresses the opposition we might just invade.

And we have the option of invading Zimbabwe and killing Mugabe and his thugs, rather than wait another 20 years for Amnesty and Human Rights Watch lawsuits to play out.
______________
Alpha Liberal not only serves up more Lefty tripe, he serves up cliche`d Lefty tripe. An even worse sin.

Whatever peace they have is primarily the peace of the graveyard.

What a howler! 120,000 mainly Iraqis killing Iraqis. Less deaths per capita than the US Civil War, either Algerian Civil War, the Lebanon Civil War, far less than the killing the Taliban did in Afghanistan, the casualties suffered in East Timor. Except for two years, living in New Orleans or Detroit was mare dangerous than being one of the 24 million living in Iraq.

Maguro said...

Ri-i-i-ight. That went just according to plan.

Victory does not equal everything going "according to plan". If that is the standard then victory is impossible by definition.

Things certainly did not go according to plan in the Civil War but it was still a Union victory, right?

Jason said...

Clearly, AL is one of those who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

The Drill SGT said...

Tibore said...

Uxbridge: By God, sir, I've lost my leg!
Wellington: By God, sir, so you have!


Uxbridge and Wellington were hardly best buddies. Uxbridge having had an affair with the wife of Wellington's brother. Obtained a divorce from his first wife, got a divorce for the second wife, and married her in 1810, when divorces required Acts a Parliment (big deals). I note that his second wife (ex-Wellsley) delivered her first child (of 10) with Uxbridge on 4 March 1810, while first wife delivered her last child (of 8) with Uxbridge also in 1810. Her was both a good cavalry commander and a randy SOB (lots of good Cavalry CDRs meet that test :)

Anyway, lots of bad blood between them. I think the best story about them at Waterloo was from the night before the battle. Uxbridge was whining that Wellington had not shared his plan of battle. Wellington points out that they are defending and that Napoleon has the initiative and says something like:

"When Bonnie lets me know what his plans are, I shall let you know what my plans are".

the best quote from Wellington at Waterloo was:

"They came at us the same old way and we beat them the same old way"

Lawgiver said...

Whatever peace they have is primarily the peace of the graveyard.

Truth from alpha.

Why does Obama keep our troops in Afghanistan? Everyone knows OSB is in Pakistan. Instead he is sending more troops there. Why doesn't Obama bring our troops home from Korea, Japan, Germany and England? Why is he going to leave 50,000 in Iraq after he said he would bring the troops home? We are just going to fill up more graveyards. Obama is maintaining our role as an invader and bully. Your guy lied, more are gonna die.

John Stodder said...

I'll let you know what you're missing: (1)a majority of Iraqi's still think we should never have invaded...

Oh, bullshit. The results really don't support your take. Look at question 7. "What in your opinion is the single biggest problem facing Iraq?" U.S. occupation/presence was named by only 7 percent, and that number is pretty steady in the two years they've taken the poll, ranging from 6-9 percent. Question 8 asks if it was absolutely right, somewhat right, somewhat wrong or absolutely wrong for the US to invade. The two "somewhat..." answers obviously convey some ambivalence, but the answer that is most meaningful is the percentage who say it was "absolutely wrong," meaning they can see no good in it whatsoever. That number is 28 percent, down from a high of 35 percent in '07. Overwhelmingly, this die-hard anti-war faction is Sunni. In this poll, 62 percent of Sunnis think it was "absolutely wrong," while only 17 percent of Shiites say so, and only 3 percent of Kurds.

America-haters can take more comfort in the answers to questions 16 and 21, in which the surveyed Iraqis convey relatively poor reviews of the occupation. It's paradoxical, however. Question 20 asks "who do you think currently controls things?" 53 percent say the US while only 32 percent say the Iraqi government. This is why polls of this nature need to be taken with a grain of salt. From this poll, you can conclude Iraqis in general feel that:

1. Everything is getting better.
2. The US is perceived to be in charge of things.
3. The US is doing a bad job.

It doesn't compute, which makes me think there was bias in how the questions were worded and ordered -- not necessarily conscious bias, but something to distort the results such that the US can be perceived as doing a bad job despite the fact that we're credited with being in charge and things are improving.

The Drill SGT said...

The good news is we won in Iraq.

The bad news is that winning in Afghanistan is ultimately impossible in the context that Afghanistan isn't really a country, but rather a loose collection of tribes with a border drawn around them. The best we're going to be able to get is something like we have now. A weak central government and regional warlord types with predators circling around keeping AQ on the run.

Issob Morocco said...

AlphaLiberal,

Double Riddle me this, are you asking about refugees since Saddam came to power or just since the war to free them from Saddam?

Because if the former, there are many more than the latter (and certainly many unable to respond due to death prior to the war at the hands of Saddam).

Ignorance is Bliss said...

1. Everything is getting better.
2. The US is perceived to be in charge of things.
3. The US is doing a bad job.


There's nothing contradictory there. It's entirely possible to beleive that things are getting better, but that they'd be getting better even faster without the US being in charge.

Your Correspondent said...

As usual, freedom and representative governnment comes from the barrels of American infantry rifles.
Just like pretty much the way it's been for the last two centuries.
I'm still sad so many fought against that freedom.
But I'm glad they're free enough to crab at pollsters and CNN reporters.
The irony is often unbearable.

William said...

About the efficacy and morality of Sherman's march to the sea suppose a poll were taken of 1)white southerners 2)freed slaves 3) Union troops. To which group would you, as a liberal, give two figs about?

Paul said...

Saddam's gone. His WMDs and programs are gone too. Qaddafi's nukes are gone also.

There is a nascent democracy in Iraq and a chance for liberty and prosperity where there was none before.

There is a new model for government and civil society in the ME. If it prospers others might decide it's worth emulating.

AQ got there ass handed to them by the Americans on the battlefield and rejected on the ideolgical battlefield by Iraqi Sunni Muslims. Only the "failed" occupation and the subsequent life under AQ rule could have turned their Sunni brothers so violently against them. Only rejection by Sunnis could so thoroughly discredit AQ in the eyes of fellow Muslims. So our "failed" plans actually paid off in huge dividends.

Only America hating terminally stupid liberals can look at the above scenario and find a colossal failure.

Freeman Hunt said...

What is with the claim that opposing the Iraq War does not constitute wishing Saddam back in power? The only way it isn't is if you allow for some existent fairyland where you can imagine whatever ridiculous scenario you'd like to oust the guy. Why would you give any credence to that?

The reality is that Saddam had an absolute stranglehold on his people. He filled mass graves with merely suspected political enemies. He had no plans to cede power. Then the US came and defeated him, and now he is gone. That's reality.

Some fantasy about how Saddam magically leaves power without the being defeated part is just that, fantasy. Not reality.

I was an ultra-liberal when the debate about whether or not we should go into Iraq started. I fully supported it and remember being absolutely stunned that any fellow liberals would be against it.

I'm not a liberal anymore, but I'm still stunned by how the pre-war leftist rhetoric went down.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Not to mentioned 100s of thousands dead and the people who attacked us on 9/11 still free.

The actual people who attacked us are dead unless they parachuted out of the planes before impact.

Outside of Osama who is most likely a brown stain in a cave somewhere, AQ is pretty much toast.

But don't worry Alpha, whether we invade or provide hundreds of millions in aid when there's a massive earthquake in Pah-kee-stan or a tsunami in Indonesia, we're still hated.

Just can't please some folks.

Justin said...

I get the sense that Bush was a True Believer with respect to the invasion of Iraq. He wanted the whole package: Saddam gone, free and prosperous Iraq, flowers in the streets, and more power to influence the same throughout the region. His mistake, though, was trusting Cheney and Rumsfeld (who are much more cynical) to get it done.

The initial invasion went brilliantly. Then they promptly screwed the pooch. They never intended to occupy the country. Maybe they heard Bush's campaign speech about how we're not going to be nation builders. But then we start hearing reports of chaos, looting, sectarian violence, and an insurgency. I imagine Cheney and Rumsfeld looking at each other confused and saying, "Yeah, so? It's war, what did you expect?" While the President is angrily saying, "I expected peace in the middle east!"

When the dynamic duo finally realize that he was serious about that "democratization crap" (as they would call it) all along, they scramble to put together a post-war plan. That's when we start hearing phrases like "We've won the war, now we have to win the peace."

At least that's how I imagined it happening. I could be wrong. Of course, this doesn't absolve the President of what happened. He should have made his intentions clear to his subordinates.

There are a couple of points that I think most people (on both sides of this debate) seem to overlook:

1. Many on the pro-invasion side refuse to acknowledge that the aftermath of the invasion was a disaster and that conditions in Iraq were very, very bad until after the surge turned things around. You can recognize this without believing the war was a mistake.

2. Many on the anti-invasion side refuse to acknowledge that the world is better off without Saddam in power and that a free and (getting to be) prosperous Iraq is good for just about everyone. You can recognize this without believing that the war was a good idea.

The ends don't justify the means. And the means don't invalidate the ends. I just wish more people would be honest about both.

By the way, 1 above doesn't make you a warmonger and 2 doesn't make you a traitor.

Justin said...

Wow, that was a long post. I feel like Cedarford. Except I didn't mention jews.

Shanna said...

1. Many on the pro-invasion side refuse to acknowledge that the aftermath of the invasion was a disaster and that conditions in Iraq were very, very bad until after the surge turned things around. You can recognize this without believing the war was a mistake.

I actually think a lot of people on the pro-invasion side acknowledge this, and that is one of the reasons Bush’s approval rating tanked. The part was a disaster for a while, but the options were fixing it (Bush), or letting it be a disaster on it’s own, without us there (kerry). We opted for fixing it and hopefully we’ve done a fair job (I’m one of those who doesn’t think we’ll know the full results of all of this for 20 years).

AlphaLiberal said...

I'm way too busy to engage all of this. But a few points:

The question we should face is "was it a good idea to invade and would/will we do so again in like circumstances?" I say no because of the costs to our treasury, our service members and their families, to the Iraqi people, and to our standing in the world.

We did not invade Iraq to remove Saddam, you revisionists. We invaded because we were told they were a clear and present danger. Which they weren't.

Conservatives hold a blind eye to all the downsides of Iraq. OK. That's what you do.

In terms of exiles, I don't have numbers on how many were during Saddam or as a consequence of the invasion and occupation. I do know I have posted here numerous times US government maps showing that Baghdad neighborhoods have been homogenized and people driven from their homes who were not of the prevailing ethnicity.

That happened on our watch and with the approval of St Petreaus and Dick Cheney. We even built fences to wall off these neighborhoods.

We also know the coorruption has been rampant, to the point that US service members are electrocuted to this day due to shoddy contractor work. AGAIN, overwhelming silence from the right. See no evil...

And, again, I could post no end of facts and logic and it wouldn't affect the thinking, positions or language of the hard cases here.

So, have a nice day.

Oh, I think it was up to the Iraqi people to deal with Saddam. But I believe in self-determination, not in my country being the dictator of the world and setting up governments in other lands. That's the conservative mindset.

AlphaLiberal said...

More ignorance and delusion:
As usual, freedom and representative governnment comes from the barrels of American infantry rifles.
Just like pretty much the way it's been for the last two centuries.


You should try telling that to someone from Iran who lived under the jackboot of the Shah. Or likewise, someone from Nicaragua (Somoza), El Salvador (ARENA etc), Philippines (Marcos), Argentina (Pinochet), Iraq (Saddam, supported by Republicans in 1980s), Musharraf (Pakistan) etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

The US government has installed and propped up a long list of brutal and anti-democratic dictators. We have overthrown democratically elected leaders.

This is a simple fact. It is hardly patriotic to hide your eyes from such realities.

AlphaLiberal said...

Freeman Hunt often posts substantive points:
What is with the claim that opposing the Iraq War does not constitute wishing Saddam back in power?

Because it is dishonest projecting upon the opponents of the invasion and the occupation of Iraq the darkest and most sinister of motives.

That would be like someone like me saying:
People in favor of the invasion and occupation just wanted to set up torture chambers for Iraqi's dragged from their homes in the dead of night.

That happened, it was deliberate policy but I don't think most occupation supporters liked it.

Besides, the American people weer not sold that invasion and occupation on the basis of "we must remove Saddam from power." It was about 2 dozen other reasons involving our own security.

AND... I, and other liberals, wanted Saddam out of power back in the 1980s when Republicans were propping him up!

Your Correspondent said...

The official policy of the US government, as voted upon in 1995 by Congress and signed by President Clinton was the removal of Saddam Hussein from power.
Bush complied with this resolution.
There was a clear and present danger, as well. They were shooting at us, and they said they wouldn't.
Plus, Iraq was actively physically and monetarily supporting terror organizations. The people blown up by Saddam's money felt it was a danger.
There's a representative constitutional democratic government in Iraq. Just typing those words borders on the miraculous.
There's never been a nation without flaws and bumbles and terrible decisions.
There's never been a nation that's done more to advance individual human rights that the U.S.

Mr. Forward said...

"AND... I, and other liberals, wanted Saddam out of power back in the 1980s when Republicans were propping him up!"
AlphaLiberal

Twenty years later.

"Oh, I think it was up to the Iraqi people to deal with Saddam."
AlphaLiberal

The Drill SGT said...

CALGARY, Alberta (AP) - Former President George W. Bush says he won't criticize President Barack Obama because Obama "deserves my silence," and says he plans to write a book about the 12 toughest decisions he made in office. Bush's speech Tuesday at a luncheon in Calgary, Alberta was his first since leaving office.

I'm not a huge Bush fan, but classy