<p>Bill Clinton has told Chris Wallace to "shut the hell up" on Fox News Sunday so I wouldn't say those words are indicative of my intelligence. Saddam wasn't responsible for the acts of terror on 9/11, but he was a terrorist to his own people, killing millions and commiting some of the worst war crimes in recent history. If you think that Saddam wasn't a big player in the global war on terror then you are very naive.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>QFT (10 char)</p>
<p>^ Uhh, and that was all back in the 80's (when our govt. supported him) or after Bush I told the non-Sunni Iraqis to rise-up in revolt, only to turn his back on them as well (until int'l pressure forced Bush I to set up the "no-fly zone").</p>
<p>Btw, the NFZ protected Ansar Al Islam, a Kurdish group affiliated w/ Al Qaeda from Saddam's forces - but that didn't prevent the admin. from using Ansar as "proof" that Saddam harbored Islamic terrorists.</p>
<p>Since then - yeah, Saddam behaved like the typical totalitarian tyrant - but he was hardly killing tens of thousands, much less thousands (and that doesn't seem to stop us from trading w/ China or for Bush to go to Beijing for the Olympics).</p>
<p>Meanwhile, more than half a million people have been killed in Sudan - and what have we done?</p>
<p>As tyrants go - there were plenty of other tyrants who were causing more damage at the time (i.e. - Sudan, Myanmar, Zimbabwe, NKorea, etc.) and what have done w/ regard to them? Pretty much nothing.</p>
<p>And oh, let's not forget this admin making PEACE w/ Gadaffi - who actually committed terrorism overseas.</p>
<p>This admin was so set on toppling Saddam - that it didn't sen in enough troops into Afghanistan.</p>
<p>Not only is Afghanistan still a mess, but b/c the lack of troops, Bin Laden and his cohorts were able to escape during the Battle of Tora Bora into Pakistan.</p>
<p>And btw, Clinton isn't exactly the brightest bulb either.</p>
<p>Halliburton</p>
<p>
[quote]
Praytell what Saddam had to do w/ "the war on terror"?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>He's Muslamic! Oh wait, he's was a secular dictator that the fundies despised. Oops.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Bill Clinton has told Chris Wallace to "shut the hell up" on Fox News Sunday so I wouldn't say those words are indicative of my intelligence.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Bill Clinton is a Rhodes Scholar, Yale Law graduate, and former President of the United States. You, however, are a poster on CC.</p>
<p>XCisforMe, you should check out liberalsmustdie.com</p>
<p>
[quote]
we are on the road to success in the war on terror.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This really is a laughable comment.</p>
<p>Like the London, Madrid, Indonesia/Bali, Turkey, Morocco, Karachi, Beirut, Mogadishu, etc. bombings didn't occur after the Iraq invasion.</p>
<p>Or the plots to attack Glasgow, Germany, Spain, England, the US, etc. weren't uncovered and foiled since then.</p>
<p>Whenever a liberal has lost an argument about the war on terror they bring up the atrocities in the Sudan. 50 years from now Bush will be seen as a great President for taking down Hussein, setting the standard that the war on terror will be fought overseas, and being one of the few Presidents ever to stick to their word and not be swayed by lobbyists. Since Vietnam, wars haven't been popular, and Presidential ratings have been low, but look at Reagan, approval ratings in the 30%'s, and now seen as one of the best conservative Presidents ever.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Saddam wasn't responsible for the acts of terror on 9/11, but he was a terrorist to his own people, killing millions and commiting some of the worst war crimes in recent history. If you think that Saddam wasn't a big player in the global war on terror then you are very naive.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Your post undermines itself! Hussein wasn’t a big player in the global war on terror at all! You said it yourself: he was a terrorist TO HIS OWN PEOPLE. Not the rest of the world. What’s more, as you admit, Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush 43 tried so hard to make a connection that never existed in the first place.</p>
<p>People like Karl Rove are always harping about how Bush 43 will be seen as a savior in the history textbooks. Yeah, right. He started two wars, one of which was absolutely pointless. Worse than that, he half-assed both wars! Unfortunately, in this case, the whole is less than the sum of its parts.</p>
<p>It was a momentous waste of time, money, and human life to depose and execute Saddam Hussein. The Iraq War has set a dangerous precedent. We have told the world that unless they can protect themselves, if we don’t like them, then we will go after them and we will kill their leaders. That is, we’ve given every country that doesn’t like us a major incentive to actually have weapons.</p>
<p>Think I’m spewing liberal BS? (I consider myself quite conservative, by the way.) The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea went nuclear in 2006. Why haven’t we deposed and executed Kim Jong-il, whose record is as spotty or spottier than Hussein’s? Maybe, just maybe, it's because the DPRK can actually fight back whereas Hussein couldn't do anything?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Whenever a liberal has lost an argument about the war on terror they bring up the atrocities in the Sudan.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First off, I'm not a "liberal" - but a life-long "old school" Republican.</p>
<p>You remember - the ones who aren't blind, neo-cons.</p>
<p>
[quote]
50 years from now Bush will be seen as a great President for taking down Hussein, setting the standard that the war on terror will be fought overseas
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Please - what's so great about that (he was a tin-cup dictator)?</p>
<p>What Bush will be remembered for is draining our Treasury (putting this govt. into the greatest deficit it has ever had) - which is one of the reasons why the economy is in the crapper as it is (wars tend to do that - esp. if one can't pay for it).</p>
<p>The same economic malaise is happening that occurred during the Carter years due to the Vietnam debt.</p>
<p>Meanwhile China and Russia are just getting richer and stronger and laughing their heads off.</p>
<p>There are plenty of "old-time" Republicans who are disgusted w/ Bush & Cheney.</p>
<p>
[quote]
and being one of the few Presidents ever to stick to their word and not be swayed by lobbyists.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I seem to recall K-street becoming the most influential under this administration (not only that, Bush had industry-insiders at the top govt. positions - where they would rewrite scientific conclusions, etc.).</p>
<p>Not to mention all the deregulation that has led to Enron and the current subprime/credit fiasco (as well as the exorbitant rise in oil prices).</p>
<p>And stick to his word? Gee, I seem to recall Bush saying he would do everything in his power to uncover the misdeeds in the Valerie Plame case (and there are plenty more examples).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Since Vietnam, wars haven't been popular, and Presidential ratings have been low, but look at Reagan, approval ratings in the 30%'s, and now seen as one of the best conservative Presidents ever.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And Reagan would be ****ed off at many of Bush's policies.</p>
<p>Back to the original post:</p>
<p>Who is winning the War in Iraq right now?</p>
<p>We have 3 interests in the Middle East region from a national security and foreign affairs perspective:</p>
<p>1) The protection of Israel
2) The securing of an oil supply for our nation and economy
3) Making sure that disgruntled Middle Easterners don't commit terrorist attacks against us there or here</p>
<p>The neoconservatives with the Bush Administration convinced that Administration that deposing Saddam Hussein and installing a democratic govt. in Iraq would help us solve all the problems we have in the Middle East and, implicitly, would serve all three of these interests. In particular, it was argued that number 3 would be served by deposing Saddam Hussein; at the time that the war started we were still a nation wracked by concerns over 9/11 and this was the justification for the war -- e.g. "mushroom clouds, weapons of mass destruction" etc.</p>
<p>So, now: is the US winning the war in Iraq? Well, we won the war militarily in the sense that we were able to depose Saddam and assert much control within the first few weeks of our invasion. But you need to remember our goal was to install a democratic govt. We thought this would create a pro-American peace-loving govt. and we thought it would be easy ("they'll greet us with flowers.") However, the Bush Administration fairly quickly backed off the goal of a democratic govt. and suggested that it would be enough to have a united govt. that could govern Iraq. I'd say right there in a very real sense we'd already lost; generally, it is not considered a win if one doesn't achieve one's main objective.</p>
<p>However, some people argued it will have made us safer by taking the "fight to the enemy." Well, we quickly discovered that there were no weapons of mass destruction -- one of the key spurs to our "going on the offense in order to be defensive." So that wasn't a policy of success. A lot of people think the concerns about weapons of mass destruction were way oversold -- yes, that the Administration lied. Others think the intelligence genuinely did point to the possibility. In fact the Administration admitted to having essentially lied when they made certain statements (the famous 16 words). Even if they really did believe that WMD were likely there, IMO, they really didn't want to avoid war; they wanted war.</p>
<p>People will argue that it was better to fight Al Qaeda and other terrorists is in Iraq rather than elsewhere. This view might make some sense if Iraq was like a flame attracting all existing Al Qaeda terrorists as if they were moths to the flame, baiting terrorists so they could be eliminated. In fact, the War in Iraq is like a wind fanning the flames of Al Qaeda terrorism. Al Qaeda didn't exist in Iraq prior to our invasion there. Anti-US sentiment throughout the region was greatly strengthened by our war effort, and our efforts did not stymie terrorism, but in fact increased it.</p>
<p>So, across the board, the war policy was a failure of achieving reasonable objectives or serving our interests.</p>
<p>Now, is the surge working? Remember the purpose of the surge was to create stability and security enough such that a political settlement could be achieved that would lead to a stable and secure government capable of governing Iraq.</p>
<p>It does appear that overall there is a bit more stability, or less violence in parts of Iraq. Has this, however, led the Iraqis any closer to a meaningful political settlement that will give their country a united, effective government? All knowledgeable observers say no.</p>
<p>We have a choice: do we stay in Iraq and try to keep things from blowing up or do we realize that, having fallen far short of our goals, it is time to stop having our military personnel bear the brunt of policy blunders?</p>
<p>I go with the Jesse Ventura test for whether staying there is a worthwhile thing for us to do:</p>
<p>Answer truthfully: would you send your son or daughter to be part of the effort in Iraq? If you can honestly say yes, you believe the cause is worthy of that level of possible sacrifice, then maybe the effort would have been worth it. (In the case of high school students here, would you send a brother or a sister?)</p>
<p>Still, Ambidextrous nailed it when he/she said that both the Americans and Iraqis are losing the war. See post 2.</p>
<p>We tend to have war coverage that views the war as two football teams vying. So we ask who is winning and who is losing?</p>
<p>But we are like a security detail in a stadium where a soccer riot has, at our instigation, gotten out of control. We want to control the riot. A lot of people in the stadium want us to control the riot. But the riot we ourselves unleashed is now following a logic of its own. Nobody's really winning.</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, some people argued it will have made us safer by taking the "fight to the enemy."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That was another one of the lies told by the admin.</p>
<p>As long as the US meddled in the Middle East, Bin Laden wants to attack the US and damage us as much as possible (remember, one of his main goals is to wreak economic damage - thanks to Bush, it has been accomplished).</p>
<p>That's why there have been a no. of plots (to attack us) uncovered by the FBI or abandoned by Al Qaeda (due to not being "big" enough) since 9/11.</p>
<p>There are plenty of Muslim radicals in Europe who are itching to get into the US in order to commit another dramatic attack.</p>
<p>Plus Iraq became a great training ground for radicals - many of whom have done their "time" and are going home to spread their "knowledge" (also a reason why tactics used in Iraq, but never before used in Afghanistan, have popped up in Afghanistan).</p>
<p>
[quote]
and now seen as one of the best conservative Presidents ever.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's not saying much. Who's his immediate competition? Richard Nixon? Herbert Hoover? </p>
<p>And Reagan's stature is controversial at best. The senseless platitude of "he ended communism" is a good litmus test of BS. Reagan destroyed the budget that Clinton miraculously restored. And let's not get into Iran-Contra.</p>
<p>Bottom line? Reagan kind of sucks, but he's the best the Republicans have got in the post-Eisenhower era (Dwight, BTW, was a great president).</p>
<p>
[quote]
And Reagan's stature is controversial at best. The senseless platitude of "he ended communism" is a good litmus test of BS. Reagan destroyed the budget that Clinton miraculously restored. And let's not get into Iran-Contra.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Funny how people always seem to overlook Reagan trading arms w/ the "enemy" (Iran).</p>
<p>And as for winning the "cold war" - while Reagan played his part, Gorbachev and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan had more to do w/ it.</p>
<p>Reagan's contribution, ironically, was one in which he got attacked for from the right-wing - the arms reduction talks w/ Gorbachev.</p>
<p>During these talks, Reagan was appalled to learn that the Russians really did fear that the US would launch a 1st strike. Reagan used his considerable charm to assuage Gorbachev from those fears.</p>
<p>B/c of that - Gorbachev felt secure enough not to order tanks into Poland, etc. when the "wall" fell (anyone who thinks the Soviets didn't still have the means to roll tanks into the Eastern-bloc nations is a fool).</p>
<p>^ yes and to add to that the soviet union was already in political and economical turmoil. </p>
<p>"MR.GORBACHEV TEAR DOWN THIS WALL!!!"</p>