There were, and remain, strategic objectives to Iraq beyond simply WMD or even Hussein. But the strategic objectives are shot due to the unanticipated insurgency and continued sectarian violence.

Ok, nice recovery.

Question: Why are we fighting, no, who are we fighting in Iraq? The people we're shooting, the people shooting us, Who are they? Are they these "terrorists"?

There's a serious disconnect here about the terminology. Without some common ground here, we will continue to fumble blindly around this elephant, some claiming it's like a tree while others claim it's like a rope.

I love it when UT sets little boobie-traps in his posts:

Vague terminology is like a blank check.

A primary reason we attacked Iraq was described by the PNAC in advance. They thought we'd be greeted as liberators, and the jubilant Iraqis would give us land for military bases. They'd become a shining beacon of democracy, inspiring the people in neighboring countries to overthrow their despotic leaders and spread democracy throughout the region. And as our new ally, Iraq would sell us oil that would bypass the OPEC cartel.

Terrorism had little to do with it, except for reducing the need for the administration to come up with another excuse. Of all the countries in the region, Iraq was pretty low on the list of terrorist support.

You are mistaking my disdain for rightwingers as a disdain for Americans.


Terrorists cause terror, they put people in fear. Shock and Awe caused fear in Iraq. Iraq has never caused fear in America or Britain.

I think this thread has become nothing more than a slanging match between usually reasonable people.

Get a grip you lot.

All DanaC was trying to say was thankyou for doing what she was unable to do because she's not a US citizen. I'd like to say I'm happy with the outcome of the recent elections and it's a credit to the majority of US citizens.

As has been discussed in another thread recently, citizens of the world at large are affected by internal US politics. That's why there's interest in your elections and that's why others like to comment.

That's it.

I'm waiting for other shoe to drop once Americans find out that the Dems are as clueless about all this as the Reps. ("But it we were told it would all get better once the Republicans left office and we voted for the Dems! Why oh why!")

I don't think any reasonable person believes the Dems will cure all the ills. I think most people really just figured that the Republicans had their turn, and it is now time to bring in the guys on the bench.

Politics and social upheaval are a pendulum, not a massif. They swing from one side to the other over time, and do not remain embedded and immovable. The pendulum has reached its rightmost extreme, and will now swing back to the left for awhile. Lather, rinse, repeat.

:smack:

No, no, no, no... It was the PRESIDENT, in "campaign mode" who said a vote for the Democrats was a vote for defeat. sheesh. stop drinkin the kool aid, 'k?

I thought that was assinine when that was used then as well, k? I was commenting more on the idea that people I talk to seem to believe that if the Reps are kicked out of office then everything will be peachy.

Those people are deluded.

Government can do good, although some will say I'm deluded for saying so. The principal difference I see just now is that Democratic majorities permit a different set of ideas, a different agenda. I hope the good that can come will be in the form of a different method in Iraq. The previous "plan"--"victory over terrorists" was not working. It seemed clear to me that the decision to "stay the course" had a large component of ... what? Shame? Fear of appearing weak by confessing the obvious failure of the "plan".

I believe there's more relief to GWB's mind than he's willing to display, in that now he can change and save some face. That's it. There was a pathological fear of losing *face* that prevented some legitimate changes. Now he has some cover--I eagerly anticipate some action.

I don't think anyone believes a change of government is a quick fix or that all the people will be happy once it's done.

Don't mistake happiness at a chance for change for delusion.

The Democratic Party, lacking (and how!) a plan to win the war of its own, will have to execute the "Republican plan" they've been irresponsibly trying to resist and undermine these past several years.

Who wants to bet a nickel they'll still eff it right up and lose the war to a bunch of hemipygian Islamofascists?

Perhaps they'll conclude the conflict and develop a plan to actually find Bin Laden. :)