Iraq's future shaky as war enters year 7

I support the people who liberated Iraq and continue to bravely confront evil.

War?

Over 6 years and at a cost of no less than $2Trillion we're still locked in Iraq.

I support the troops. I've never supported this war.

Bring the troops home. < :-)

"I've never supported this war"

Then you've supported keeping Saddam in power.

"Bring the troops home"

Nah, President Obama's sending them to Afghanistan.

If Saddam had been left in power and the US had never invaded, lets think what might have been different?

Just a few points that come to mind....

1) Over 4,000 US servicemen would be alive (not including other nations)

2) Over 30,000 US servicemen would be uninjured and many would not be requiring lifelong rehab.

3) In excess of 100,000 Iraqis would be alive

4) Over US$2T would not have been poured down the drain (again, not including other nations)

5) Saddam would still not have WMD

6) Al Qaida would not have had a foothold in Iraq

7) Afghanistan could have been cleaned up properly

8) Pakistan could have been dealt with more effectively (and they DO have WMD)

9) The US would have a far better international reputation and be able to use its political power far more effectively now.

Any one got any more?

archiebald I agree, but make that more than 50K wounded and over 500,000 innocent Iraqi citizens dead.

Bring the troops home. < :-)

I got my US casualty figures from here;

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm

I understand. I was reading a report last year, don't have the link, that explained that these wounded was as a direct result of combat. This doesn't include the ones who are wounded bringing in supplies, flipping a vehicle and all riders die. Those numbers on top of the 30K brings it much over 50K. < :-)

flipping a vehicle and all riders die.

S/B all riders are wounded. Broken legs and backs. < :-)

Sarge: Then you've supported keeping Saddam in power.

Sarge, you did not go fight him did you? So you supported him right? There is a world of difference between supporting something and merely accepting a situation because you don't find it worth a whole lot of blood and treasure, particularly YOUR OWN BLOOD. Oh, dear, too wordy for you? Ok, here, I paraphrase:

Acceptance is NOT support. M'kay?

Sarge -

I support the people who liberated Iraq and continue to bravely confront evil.

Thank you.

"I've never supported this war" Then you've supported keeping Saddam in power.

Wrong. You already know why.

"Bring the troops home" Nah, President Obama's sending them to Afghanistan.

Good move. You already know why.

They chose peace in Iraq. They got with the showgramme!

I thought the war ended after a few short months? Doesn't anyone remember the "Mission Accomplished" banner?

archiebald: ' what a no. 9. Perhaps, just perhaps we could have made nice with Saddam and he could have helped us. I don't know why there was such a push to liberate Iraq from him while there are hundreds of countries whose leaders are just as bad if not worse (North Korea?).

But, for the WMDs. I believe there were once some there. But that should have not been the grand stand reason to go into the place and as far as they "now have a democracy" well, I don't care. Was their new democracy worth the price?

skipthesong, Not sure about your comment but to clarify what I meant - The international reputation and goodwill that existed post 9/11 was flushed down the toilet by the arrogance of the Bush administration. Not only did it drag America down to new lows amongst the Arab world (and made the world far more dangerous as a result) but relations with many of Americas traditional allies was strained close to breaking point right up to the day the US voters came to their senses.

I am not saying Saddam wasn't evil, but he was a known entity and Iraq was not a safe haven for Al Qaida or a recruiting ground for Iran under his rule.

I never believed from day one that there were any WMD and even if there were, the possibility of using them to attack the US or western Europe was virtually zero.

Thankfully that era is drawing to a close and I hope Obama can try his best to restore the US to where it was before the previous incompetent incumbent put his finger in the pie.

But, for the WMDs. I believe there were once some there.

There were Skip. Even after we invaded. But, two problems. 1) America gave Saddam the tech to make them, and 2) he was no longer making them. What he had left was so old and degraded as to be useless. He never had the expertise to be able to stockpile chemical weapons for any length of time.

Saddam had not been a threat to us for a long time. Well, unless you consider a man running around with a tiny sewing needle to be a threat, and think you need to hang him and take out some his family to remove said threat.

I thought the war ended after a few short months? Doesn't anyone remember the "Mission Accomplished" banner?

What does war mean soldave? And when did Bush declare the war was over? Mission Accomplished was a slogan appropriated by the anti-war anti-bush crowd. And while I too am anti-war and anti-bush, I am not so anti-war and bush that I am anti-truth. The truth is, that slogan was a signal to the end of MAJOR coordinated full scale combat operations. After that, the occupation began, and its a whole other ball of wax. There was nothing wrong with the Mission Accomplished slogan, because one mission HAD been accomplished and a new mission was beginning.

Unfortunately, the new mission was a total flop, unlike the invasion mission. What we had there was an unorganized civil war in total defiance of the occupation. Just calling that war, as the press does, is very misleading.

And its a shame that, of all the lies and hogwash Bush and friends told us, that so many hang on to what was in fact, NOT a lie nor hogwash.

Take for example the contention that it would ALL be over in months. Or that Iraq would pay for its own reconstruction.

Our troops are back home.

I reckon what that means is the winners won and the losers lost.

Try and argue that logic.

Try and argue that logic.

First you must look past the words. What you said is not logic. Its called spin.

Our troops also came back back home from Vietnam, also missing a lot of their buddies, and a lot of those that came home, did so missing limbs.

And we are also missing a lot of tax dollars and I don't think our little investment in Iraq will be profitable enough to recoup the costs.

I reckon what that means is the winners won and the losers lost.

Oops! You got me. Nice bait and trap. Yeah, I cannot argue that.

If Saddam had been left in power and the US had never invaded, lets think what might have been different?

Sounds good to me:

1) A dictator responsible for the deaths of over a million people stays in power.

2) No verification of his destruction of WMDs with other countries following suit and ignoring the UN.

3) Continued financial support for terrorism against Israel.

4) Nuclear arms race between Iran and Iraq.

5) No democracy.

6) Kurds and Shiites living under brutality.

7) Coalition troops still in Saudi Arabia and surrounding areas.

How far into the future would you like to go? After Saddam's gone his sons take over. Better or worse? Or maybe they Iraqis overthrow the government and start their own civil war with no coalition troops there to stop it. Makes the casualties under the invasion look like a trip to Disneyland.

But lemme guess....these things most likely never cross your mind. You're simply "anti-invasion" and the analysis stops there, ne. ;)

Oh God! Super, I do not even feel like untying the silly knots you tie today. Six years and you apparently have not learned a thing. Its very disheartening.

Sorry you're having so much trouble. Call it an unintended benefit... ;)

He never had the expertise to be able to stockpile chemical weapons for any length of time." Yeah, well, c'mon. how hard was it to hire someone, even from the US, who did have the expertise? Look, its a moot point but when I he that he once had and that there isn't and then I hear that they were no longer good, yet you have some of the top scientists in the world right next door, I find it hard to believe that they never existed. I personally think if he had any, he had it sent to another country.

Still, I think we could have made good with him. I feel he could have easily been bought.

You also have to remeber, Saddam was so afraid that Iran would find out he could no longer had not could manufacture WMDs and attack him he did everything in his power to convince them that he still had a lot of WMDs and could make them at will. Unfortunately, he convinced a lot of other people too.

and that there isn't and then I hear that they were no longer good

Does not have and are no longer any good are the same things. If you ask me if I have a car, and all I have is a car so broken down it can never be fixed, I will say "No, I don't have a car." See, there are people in this world who will take the sentence "Saddam's WMDs are all so old they are no longer usuable" and turn it into "Saddam had WMDs! America is in grave danger!". So we just say "Saddam had none" in order avoid the tinkerings of Rush Limbaugh and his zombies.

I personally think if he had any, he had it sent to another country.

You can believe what you want. But I can tell you that if I were breaking the law, there is no one in the world I would trust with the goods or even so much as the knowledge of my law breaking. If you think Saddam had such great pals who are now the benefactors of his expired chemical weapons, be my guest.

But just let me say this: Even if he gave it to them, they do not possess WMD. You get me? If not, go back to the first paragraph.

Sheesh A.P,

Why did you even include this part in your all doom and gloom article?

A survey of 2,228 Iraqis questioned nationwide last month for ABC News, BBC and Japan’s NHK, found that 85 percent believed the current situation was good or very good—up 23% from last year.

Looks like darn near all Iraqi's are pretty happy with the CURRENT situation in their country. You sure couldn't tell that with this bias piece of journalism. How about a few qoutes from the 85% to balance out all the negative crap in this piece?

Ain't like they couldn't find a few in that 85% bracket of the population.

he did everything in his power to convince them that he still had a lot of WMDs and could make them at will. Unfortunately, he convinced a lot of other people too.

That's the long and the short of it.

Superlib, Where do you get your rose colored glasses? I'm looking for a pair myself.

Taka

SuperLib - Congratulations. You've managed to utterly humiliate yourself with your "list". "Point" 4 is particularly hilarious

The war mongers will forever want to be in Iraq. After the lies to get un in Iraq, the stay the course stupidity and the attempt to stay in Iraq forever by creating permanent bases.

Iraq will be the flag the republicans wave and wave while we pay our taxes to continue to pay and pay for the reconstruction. We totally destroyed the country and now we have to rebuild it.

It would be so much better if we could apply all that money wasted by chicken hawks to our own country.

But let's get more lists about why we should be there. < :-)

Too bad Bush & Co fail to protect America on 9/11 and then failed to focus on catching OBL by starting another war for whatever reason (I think they did because they thought they could, period). Yeah, Saddam was evil and so are a bunch of others that America will never bother with. And yeah, things eventually improve given enough time.

A survey of 2,228 Iraqis questioned nationwide last month for ABC News, BBC and Japan’s NHK, found that **85 percent** believed the current situation was good or very good—up 23% from last year.

85 percent

Nuff said on this one.

USAFdude ( 08:37 PM ): "SuperLib - Congratulations. You've managed to utterly humiliate yourself with your "list." "Point" 4 is particularly hilarious"

Apparently USAFdude isn't aware that Iraq had a nuclear facility until Israel destroyed it in the name of peace, and that Iran and Iraq had a debilitating war in the 1980s, and that Iran is getting closer and closer to possessing nukes.

If only Mr McCain had been elected the US would have been victorious.

just for the record, I'd like to know how many poster have spent ti me in Iraq. I was there for 4 and 1/2 years. I nave first hand knowledge of conditions there. I dealt daily with local nationals. If your only information on this subject comes from the media, where every editor has a politicl agenda. then you don't know what you're talking about.

"A survey of 2,228 Iraqis questioned nationwide last month for ABC News, BBC and Japan’s NHK, found that 85 percent believed the current situation was good or very good—up 23% from last year."

I think it all depends on what you compare. During the insurgents/US fight, more than half of the Iraqi people answered that Saddam's days were better, in the survey. Now after those massacre days caused by the invasion, they sure find the actual situation better than before.

Don't forget that the intrastructures are still not completely re-established. (especially the water & electricity supply)

"In February, the U.S. military recorded 367 attacks nationwide, compared with 1,286 for the same month last year"

That's 13 suicide attacks per day in Feb. And that's a 90% reduction??

V I C T O R Y