what do you think of this lady?

[Madame Adequate]

A) Saddam's out. His sons are dead. The Kurds are free, the oil wells aren't on fire, the Marsh Arabs are able to at least try and move back to the land Saddam ruined, and Iraqis are quite free to loudly criticise the people in charge.
B) I'm still not convinced we are, but it wouldn't be unwise to do given the noises Iran is making.
C) The administration could have done things better, true, and certainly waiting until after the UN corruption was exposed to go to war. And even more certainly giving the troops the proper equipment. But just because it's not going perfectly doesn't mean it was the wrong thing to do.
D) I'm entirely of the opinion that after Iraq is completed, one way or another, that a step back should be taken and things should be re-evaluated, but that's my policy for any nation after any conflict.
D2) Yep, it is. I'd sooner my tax money goes to freeing oppressed peoples than ineffective social programs.
E) It quite possibly does, and that's yet another reason to stay there. Imagine the bolstering they would recieve if the coalition left. They'd have won, to all intents and purposes.
F) It will inevitably and incontravertably go there if we leave. If we stay there is a chance it will not. It seems like a simple decision to me, at least given that we created the situation.
G) Yep, you do. But doing that here, whether it was a mistake to go in or not, would be a mistake.

[eestlinc]

a) we accomplished all that some time ago
b) I am absolutely convinced we are making permanent military bases. That's absolutely the reason we went into Iraq in the first place. The current US administration has every intention of a long and protracted presence in the Middle East to try and reform the region. It might work. Maybe. But that's absolutely the plan.It's the neocon dream. Getting fat off the defense contracts is just gravy that makes it easier to get big business to go along.
c) It wasn't necessarily the wrong thing to do, but "altruistic" hamhandedness is not a very good foreign policy. Things are not going well right now, and they aren't magically going to get better. Pulling out doesn't fix the situation, but continuing to screw things up makes it worse.
d) when is Iraq going to be completed? Ten years? Better hope nothing else comes up during that time that might require US military action.
d) I'd rather the government not waste tax money or foreign or domestic boondoggles, but fat chance of that happening. The domestic spending is going to be there regardless, it's how Congressmen get reëlected.
e) we need to stop thinking in terms of who "wins" and like we're in a nutsack competition with terrorist insurgents. It's asymmetric warfare and we're not equipped to effectively combat it. The insurgency is aimed at combatting an occupying force. Remove the occupying force and they lose their target to combat.
f) the only reason there won't be a civil war if we stay is because it will be a war between Iraqi factions and US troops. So you are supporting us fighting one side of a civil war by proxy.
g) so at what point will "cutting our losses" be palatable enough? How many American lives do we have to waste? How many tax dollars do we have to waste?

[Dudius]

is there any reason to believe "the job" will ever get more than half done? what job exactly is half done?

I'm fairly firmly of the belief that at least making an attempt to fix Iraq up into somewhat reasonable shape is better than leaving now and letting the civil war commence.

Even if you refuse to belive it, we aren't there to "fix" Iraq. We just can't afford to lose control. Do you really think that the US is ever going to leave that place? It's all about natural resources, it's the 4th largest oil producer in the world. W've already been in Afganistan militarily for over 20 years because they want to build a pipeline to transport natural gasses.

So all that BS about helping Iraq all come together you can just ignore. US just can't get out of anyone's business.

[eestlinc]

It's not about natural resources. It's about militarism and the overarching goal to destroy the Middle East and rebuild it in a more desirable image. This isn't colonialism, it's nation building, and it's turning out to be a lot harder than the neocons figured it would be. How surprising.

Iraq won't supply us any more oil while under our control that it would have under Iraqi control. The oil resources are stretched thin regardless. The growth industry here is nation building, not fossil fuels. Contractors like Halliburton can make a lot more money building infrastructure on taxpayer dollars than they can pumping oil on consumer dollars.

[Lionx]

A better image, for America unforutnetly -____-; Not necessarily better for Iraq..although i must say i am not sure with the US troops there and all the fighting..what Iraq needs the most.

[eestlinc]

Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) from this story:

Hagel, a Vietnam veteran, acknowledged the U.S. military presence was becoming harder and harder to justify. He believes Iraq faces a serious danger of civil war that would threaten Middle East stability, and said there is little Washington can do to avert this.

"We are seen as occupiers, we are targets. We have got to get out. I don't think we can sustain our current policy, nor do I think we should," he said at one stop.

[T-MaN]

she's doing exactly the right thing.

Agreed.

[ShunNakamura]

About oil... I have read it has more do deal with the manufacturing process more then the actual supply. Afterall the refinaries can only refine so much. Can't remember it all.. but I do recall an article stating that RIGHT NOW refineries were the limiting factor.

So I doubt it was for oil. The power in the ME.. blah...blah...blah is much more likely.

[Azure Chrysanthemum]

I'm all for anti-war protests, but that woman just rubs me the wrong way. The fact that her son was a volunteer for the army and that she didn't care until AFTER he died makes me question her reason for championing the cause. If she'd protested BEFORE he'd been killed, then I wouldn't mind what she's doing at all, but I've not heard anything of that. If I'm wrong, you are all free to correct me.

And as far as the permanent military presence, I have it on very good authority (i.e. a friend of mine who served and actually saw the bases being constructed) that we are making many fully-equipped military bases in Iraq, which implies a level of permanancy.

[Madame Adequate]

a) we accomplished all that some time ago
b) I am absolutely convinced we are making permanent military bases. That's absolutely the reason we went into Iraq in the first place. The current US administration has every intention of a long and protracted presence in the Middle East to try and reform the region. It might work. Maybe. But that's absolutely the plan.It's the neocon dream. Getting fat off the defense contracts is just gravy that makes it easier to get big business to go along.
c) It wasn't necessarily the wrong thing to do, but "altruistic" hamhandedness is not a very good foreign policy. Things are not going well right now, and they aren't magically going to get better. Pulling out doesn't fix the situation, but continuing to screw things up makes it worse.
d) when is Iraq going to be completed? Ten years? Better hope nothing else comes up during that time that might require US military action.
d) I'd rather the government not waste tax money or foreign or domestic boondoggles, but fat chance of that happening. The domestic spending is going to be there regardless, it's how Congressmen get reëlected.
e) we need to stop thinking in terms of who "wins" and like we're in a nutsack competition with terrorist insurgents. It's asymmetric warfare and we're not equipped to effectively combat it. The insurgency is aimed at combatting an occupying force. Remove the occupying force and they lose their target to combat.
f) the only reason there won't be a civil war if we stay is because it will be a war between Iraqi factions and US troops. So you are supporting us fighting one side of a civil war by proxy.
g) so at what point will "cutting our losses" be palatable enough? How many American lives do we have to waste? How many tax dollars do we have to waste?

A) Conceded. What's your point? All that will be in vain if some other power-hungry loon ends up in charge.
B) Proabably true, all told, but I'm just not convinced it's a bad thing. At least, not while one is taking an interventionist policy.
C) But we're working towards a definite goal, or rather series of goals, some of which have already been achieved, and some of which are still in the works. Agreed that 'altruism' is a bad foreign policy, but there were reasons for going in beyond that (Untrue as they may have been, only the British government seems to have actively lied, whilst the others just got it wrong.), even if freeing the Iraqis from Saddam was a good reason as well.
D) Conceded.
D2) Conceded in principle, but as I've said, we're there and we have to finish it.
E) Well, of course eveyone wants the coalition to be out of Iraq ASAP. If I had the power I'd bring the troops home to their respective nations today, if the job was finished.
F) We caused the situation. No way around that argument. In my eyes, we now have a duty to do our best to prevent the situation going further downhill. If that means we're at war, we're at war.
G) It's not about that. Putting aside that I'm not going to magically change my mind when it reaches two thousand deaths or five thousand deaths or whatever, it's about finishing what we started. From a tax perspective - and you already know from other threads, I'm sure, my views on taxation - I still can't advocate pulling out because I believe we have to do our damndest to finish this as best we can. I'd like it a hell of a lot more if taxes went to sustain only a military which defended the nation from direct and overt aggressors, but that's not the situation we're in right now.

[eestlinc]

C) But we're working towards a definite goal, or rather series of goals, some of which have already been achieved, and some of which are still in the works. Agreed that 'altruism' is a bad foreign policy, but there were reasons for going in beyond that (Untrue as they may have been, only the British government seems to have actively lied, whilst the others just got it wrong.), even if freeing the Iraqis from Saddam was a good reason as well.

Well, the Bush administration knowingly ignored/altered/influenced the intelligence to make the case for war. That may not technically be lying, but it is deliberate mendacity, which is basically the same thing. They lied to get the war they wanted, jumped headlong into a tough situation against long odds, then proceeded to screw up half the stuff they did. The best solution would be to depose the incompetent and deceitful administration and replace them with leadership that could make the best fo a bad situation, but we the people decided not to do that. Now we're standing on top of a land mine afraid to step off for fear it will blow off our legs, all while gunmen take potshots at us in our immobility.

[ThroneofDravaris]

I think she needs to stop caring

[Dudius]

Think this. If they did not have oil, would we be there? No. It is about the oil. Other than that, why the hell would we try and take control of it in the first place? It's not really the greatest place to live in or visit.

[bipper]

They have sand too...

Bipper

[Teek]

They have a nice capital. It just happens to be ruled by a lot of idiots.