Captain's Quarters -

With all of these latest reports of progress, that the surge is paying off in some real improvement, I have an ominous prediction:

When Congress returns, the Dems will cut off funding for the troops. They will send up a second bill to Pres. Bush but STILL with a timeline of withdrawl and in fact, this one will have a much earlier date. If that bill is vetoed, they will go on National TV and explain that they've done all that they can and now, in respect to the American people's wishes, they have no choice but to cut funding for this war (they won't mention troops).

The Dems will NOT let the surge succeed. Everyone one of 'em will lose everything if we win, if America succeeds in Iraq.

They will get creative , believe me, but they WILL stop the funding.

"First we have allowed the situation to deteriorate over a number of years" - How could this have happened under the watchful eye of the Captain and his mates?

You guys on the right are really bending over backwards to defend McCain. It’s getting to be kind of silly.

NOTHING in this post addressing what McCain has been criticized for saying.

There were two things:

1) General Petraeus goes out there almost every day in an unarmed Humvee. You want to -- I think you ought to catch up. You see, you are giving the old line of three months ago. I understand it. We certainly don't get it through the filter of some of the media.

This is just false, irrefutably so.

2) "There are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods, today."

This also seems to be very false. First off, it’s pretty much inferred that he means without heavy security (for McCain, above his normal security). American officials have been walking through Baghdad all throughout the war/occupation/liberation with heavy security. He was asked about signs of progress. Walking through Baghdad with heavy security is not a sign of progress. So, I think it’s safe to say he meant with little or no security OR he was citing something that was NOT real progress. It’s also notable that the US Embassy did not sign off on McCain’s trip to the market, citing that it was too dangerous.

First off, this is what Ware, a man who’s been in Baghdad for the past 4 years, had to say:

“WARE: I can answer this very quickly, Wolf. No. No way on earth can a westerner, particularly an American, stroll any street of this capital of more than five million people.

I mean, if al Qaeda doesn't get wind of you, or if one of the Sunni insurgent groups don't descend upon you, or if someone doesn't tip off a Shia militia, then the nearest criminal gang is just going to see dollar signs and scoop you up. Honestly, Wolf, you'd barely last 20 minutes out there.”

Second, here’s what merchants in the market McCain visited had to say about the visit and security there:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/world/middleeast/03mccain.html

When McCain was asked specifically about what neighborhoods he was referring to in that Bill Bennett interview, he responded “I just came from one” (referring to the market he visited). According to those quoted, Iraqis don’t feel safe in that market, much less Americans.

McCain was just plain caught red-handing spouting BS. Yes, there are other signs of progress, but don’t use that as a straw man – and those signs ARE being reported in the media. People who are criticizing McCain are doing so over these two points. And he was ab-so-lutely WRONG on both of them and damn well should be called out on them.

McCain's Baghdad tour was a dry run for the security needed to visit San Francisco.

Tom:

Why defend McCain? Why should he need defending? He said that things are better in Baghdad and they are. The interesting thing is how many people feel the need to argue with that. It is also interesting how many of these same people want to abandon Iraq knowing it will only make it worse.

Would it be fair to say that the insurgency / civil war / sectarian killings in Iraq is in its last throes?

Tom,

You obviously think that McCain is lying. That's your opinion.

At the same time, I hope you will grant me the same privilege to doubt/dismiss so-called "merchant interviews" by the illustrious NY TIMES.

p.s. As for Ware. Since he admitted in one interview that he's drunk most of the time in Iraq and admitted he was drinking during the interview, I'll request the opton of believing him as well.

Hopefully, the media will report it in more depth as the situation continues to show improvement.

Hopefully no one will object to my not holding-my-breathe for that piece of conjecture to become reality. lol

Re: bbbustard at April 5, 2007 02:22 PM

The Baghdad security situation deteriorated (principally) because too often the US forces deferred to a divided and ineffectual Iraqi government. The Iraqis, being Iraqis, were much more concerned about tribal and secular politics than about establishing uniform security. But in that political situation, if the US military completely ignored the Iraqis and ran roughshod to clear out the neighborhoods, then we're the "evil oppressors." No good deed ever goes unpunished there. Our "new" strategy is not so much new, as it is finally allowed to happen. The Iraqis are onboard finally. The Iraqi government has decided that when all else fails, maybe Baghdad terrorism needs to be fought by killing and capturing Baghdad terrorists.

jiHymas:

Would it be fair to say that if the average antiwarrior had the choice between:

1} Iraq becomes a relatively {for the ME} stable country with a representative government and a decent chance at survival as a nation and Bush got some credit for holding the tyrant Saddam accountable and helping the Iraqis create a new country.
Or
2} The US runs for the hills, disgraces itself, and abandons an ally under fire and Iraq collapses with hundreds of thousands dead. Meanwhile terrorists groups firmly entrenched in place like AlAnbar province where they plot attacks to kill thousands...and Bush gets blamed.

That most of the snarky left would not jump and down and cheer on #2?

Well we have to remember that Ware not only has a reputation for being a drunk, he has a reputation for being anti military. He does not like to pick sides. After all just because a guy targets a bunch of kids standing in line for candy is no reason to assume he might be a bad guy. Got to be objective doncha know.

And CNN is the same news outfit that lied for Saddam back in the day. That is how Saddam got away with so much for so long. He bribed and or threatened foreign reporters and did not allow a free press at home. There is a free press in Iraq today, but guys like Ware could care less. I am sure he misses his minders.

So we have McCain on one hand and drunken mouthy reporter working for the Communist News Network on the other.

man, that is a tough call for some folks.

Terrye : I couldn't tell you. You'd have to ask an antiwarriro or member of the snarky left.

What I fail to understand is all the triumphalism over 'how well the surge is working'. Let's have a little realism here. There is absolutely no evidence, one way or the other, regarding the success or failure of the surge.

Violence is down now. Big deal. While I recognize that all the heroes posting commentary here would, in the event the US was occupied by a perceived enemy, attack tanks with bare hands, most combatants are just a little bit smarter than that.

The enemy has backed away, shifted operations in some cases and gone back to their day jobs in others. It's standard guerilla tactics: when the enemy advances, withdraw. When the enemy withdraws, advance. You can quibble about the propriety of calling civilian-hunting terrorists "guerillas", but you cannot draw a single conclusion about the success of this particular operation until the troops are withdrawn.

Bush's legacy? He destroyed the balance of power between Iran and Iraq, a fact the Iranians are now beginning to exploit. Letting two thugs stalemate each other just wasn't good enough.

George W. Bush: the best friend the mullahcracy ever had.

jiHymas,
If we can't draw a single conclusion abot the sucess of this particular operation until the troops are withdrawn then how could your side draw a single conclusion about the failure of the endeavor? It's you guys who have been saying it will never work, this is the worst international crisis in american history and have been using the violence as your proof. Violence is down. The enemy has backed away. The surge appears to be making some progress. If every death is proof of the absolute failure of the endeavor then when the deaths go down and Sadr appears to be on the run, and the Iraqis are turning against Al Qaeda, and ABC news puts on a newscast that shows the newscaster going to buy an ice cream cone, and shows children returning to parks and some normalcy on the ground in certani spots, how coudl that not be looked at as sucesses. not total success, not perfect success. But in the real world, when does that ever occur?
And as for destroying th balance of power between Iraq and IRan, how benefical was that for us really? We had an Iran Iraq war, we then had Iraq invade Kuwait. If we dind't box Iraq in then you'd be arguing about the balance of power in the Middle East of IRaq gaining over IRan because of its control of Kuwait? So to box in Iraq we had to deal with sanctiosn (whcih led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children as the left was so fond of poitning out), no fiy zones, three administrations and the UN saying Iraq posed a threat because of its WMD's, the need to set up oil for food which was perhaps the largest fraud in UN history. THen during peacetime we had to deal with Sadaam ethnic cleansing the marsh arabs, gassing the Kurds etc etc etc. And either Iraq had weapons or was pretending to have weapons becuase of the threat of Iran. And on IRan side we had a country that has been saying death to America for decades, which obviously, if Iraq is building weapons to protect itself from Iran has to do likewise to protect itself from Iraq. Also Iran has been a prime sponsor of terrorism, and was behind the destruction of our embassy. In short, the status quo wasn't all that great. Balance of power, my ass.

But if you want to talk about maintaining a balance of power, then having troops in Iraq to build up the govt so that it acts as that wedge would seem to me to be a pretty good strategy, no? Otherwise, if Iraq collapses completely that would completely tip the scales on the balance of power and Iran would be predominate. Why do you want toat to happen jiHymas? Since you recognize its a bad thing were the balance of power to be destroyed, why counsel that as the best move for the US?

In short, we had a situation with Iraq that was festering and had to be dealt with once and for all. Maintaining the status quo was no longer an option. And this by the way was noted by all your democratic friends when they signed off on the Iraqi liberation act in 1998. Once tIraq was dealt with and the people liberated, its then incumbent on us and our allies to assist Iraq in maintaining the balance of power now that Sadaam is gone. The side seeking to destroy the balance of power there is yours and the "freedom fighters' trying to topple the govt.

ANd if the dems were successful in making us leave before the job is done, it will be the democrats who caused the balance of power to move towards Iran's predominance not Bush.

The surge can work and appears to be working already. Despite the shrilll rhetoric this is no vietnam. IF we were in country for another 20 years and the casualty rates stayed the same it woudlnt equal Vietnam. I dont think that we'll need troops there for 20 years (though we may still have a presence there).

"jiHymas:

Would it be fair to say that if the average antiwarrior had the choice between:

1} Iraq becomes a relatively {for the ME} stable country with a representative government and a decent chance at survival as a nation and Bush got some credit for holding the tyrant Saddam accountable and helping the Iraqis create a new country.
Or
2} The US runs for the hills, disgraces itself, and abandons an ally under fire and Iraq collapses with hundreds of thousands dead. Meanwhile terrorists groups firmly entrenched in place like AlAnbar province where they plot attacks to kill thousands...and Bush gets blamed.

That most of the snarky left would not jump and down and cheer on #2?"

Terrye you are full of it. Both those "choices" are utterly rediculous.

First off choice #1 "Iraq becomes a relatively {for the ME} stable country with a representative government " is utter FANTASY. It is neither now - has been neither for the last 4-yrs and shall continue to be neither - REGARDLESS OF HOW MANY TIME YOU CRY ABOUT IT................you going to shut up and propose THE DRAFT to make it a reality? - or just cry like a baby for the next 5-yrs while you don't have to sacrifice and can be an armchair general?

Iraq WAS STABLE at least before the moron in chief illegally invaded and occupied it.

how about these objective questions Terrye? Which of the two choices would the brickhead koolaid drinking Reichwingers choose?

1. Pump more volunteer troops to die in an unwinable for a war without a just cause based upon lies so that the said reichwinger will not have to be drafted and can drive his SUV and drink his coffee without getting wet?

2. admit he was took by a lying cabel of neocons, stands up, sees that the war is unwinable UNWINABLE, and demands that not one more soldier will die for Cheney' stock portfolio.

We all know that the Reichwingers don't like to admit then they were took and don't like to sacrifice - so I'm sure we all know which choice they will choose.

tow can play that game

terryeeeeeeeeeeeee.............

gaffo, those questions that you asked you'd consider objective? Number two by the way isn't even a question, but in either case it's certainly not objective what with all the liberal buzzwords like cabal and neocons. Why don't you throw in Haliburton for good measure?
As for your question one - what is the surge but bringing in more troops? As to the rest, it's nothing but hyperbole of a closed deranged mind.

Iraqi Merchants: McCain Was Wrong

Who are you going to believe?
Boot, as the Capt sez,> “works for McCain as an advisor.”?
Or the people on the ground?

Petraeus wrote the latest book on counter-insurgency. He calls for 1 GI for every 40 to 50 of population. The so called “Bush surge” didn’t give him those numbers. While some reports suggest violence is down a little in Bagdad there is a marked increase in violence outside of Bagdad. We are playing “whack a mole”.

After we leave Iraq what will happen? If theres violence with 150,000 troops there will 20,000 more in the surge help? Won't the Iraqis finally step up to the plate? Iraq is like a huge welfare state, we rebuild, provide security, they bicker and fight among themselves.We can't stay forever, unless this is what Bush planned. If it is say goodbye to the gop. Americans will never stand for permanent occupation. There are no good solutions for Iraq, right now its just a place for Americans to be blown up and shot at. Thats what we get for liberating them? I'd pack up and tell the Iraqis your on your own now. They don't want democracy, everything in the Arab world is just a power struggle. To them its just "last man standing"

Chimpy,
Did Patreus say that the surge would fail with the trooops that were being put in? If you're going to quote Patreus, why don't you listen to Patreus and let him try to enact the plan that he was called on to do?

jr565:

Patreus, being the good soldier that he is, isn’t going to question the C in C in public. He will do the best he can with the little that was given him. He also said he won’t know for a few months whether the so called surge will work.

Wow, Terrye, you certainly hit a nerve! I didn't see where gaffo mentioned Halliburton, but perhaps he was so close to having a stroke that he was thinking even less clearly than usual and didn't remember it.

I must say, though, that I find this part of gaffo's rant illuminating:

Iraq WAS STABLE at least before the moron in chief illegally invaded and occupied it.

Yep, leaving a mass murderer in charge of a country is A-OK with the left. First of all, "stability" has become their holy grail (nazi Germany was stable; DAMN FDR for going to war with them and upsetting the apple cart!). Second of all, Saddam represents the kind of government they want: totalitarianism. They loved Stalin and Mao and Che, too. If you've got to exterminate a few thousand (or a few million) people to have stability or the government of the proletariate or whatever, that's totally cool with them.

I find it interesting that supporters of the administration are offended and outraged when someone with a little leverage now questions the performance of the administration of the war. Absence this newly granted leverage, ala elections, where were Sen. McCain and Graham seen in Iraq before? Accountability as always the most crucial dynamic, to me, relating to anything this administration has done and I think any of the administration's supporters should relish the fact that at least the Democrats will have at least a nanometer of intent available to the public for review. The stifling and subversion of the facts have been the hallmark of the GOP and this administration and I find it refreshing that I can actually watch Congress make decisions instead of being told that it's classified and pay no attention , we're just doing our job. The lack of empiricism for anything the administration has done is mind boggling, not to mention the blind faith put into the GOP and it's current rulers. Again at least you get to see what the Democrats are doing. If the stock market had not done so well you stooges probably would have woken up a little earlier, huh?Transparency gives you a chance to support your ideas and gives the benefit of the doubt , while hiding and obfuscating and adhering to the game plan of "Do it first and then explain it later" only sets one up for what we have at the current moment the American people waking up and saying what the hell have you been doing?

This surge is part of the larger ongoing emergent strategy in Iraq that had to deal with a number of immediate problems after the end of hostilities. That strategy had to deal with the immediate collapse of the entire Ba'athist regime, including all governmental sectors, police and the military. That was evident by having folks on the ground looking for same for a couple of months as the conflict wound down. As all pre-war plans were predicated on having *something* left to work with, the hard scramble to get something stood up was paramount. Myopic critics trying to use post-war conceptions with a 194_ and higher number miss out on the problems not only of those situations but the entire history of post-war problems the US seen and either failed or succeeded at in its history or by observing Allies at same.

With that as background the entire flipping of the 'oil drop' concept to one of quieting the quietest areas first and building outwards is one of conceptual spiral design based on low-manpower. The immediate moves to start cutting off supply lines via the Riverine campaign and some interdiction from the northeast, also gave basis to standing up indigenous military capability and starting to get some civic order established. Spiral design allows for testing out many things on the small scale and then scaling them up over time. Putting old Army units together was a failure and eliminated as a concept once tried. Getting deep coalition help to give multiple outlooks on how to create and run an Army. was a success and encouraged, and grounding it in the civil society that was coming back together was necessary. It takes long years to create an effective, reliable and civilian controlled Army, something that the Middle East in general, and Arab societies in particular, are not good at. Even those that have myopic views should recognize the value of a strong NCO Corps in the military and that when the US stripped down post-Vietnam, the time it took to rebuild that Corps of individuals to be reliable took nearly 15 years, and that is *with* effective individuals left and a deep history of training via the war colleges.

Actually standing *up* any form of democratic government in Iraq I had personally estimated in the 8-15 year range, which was typical for successful post-war campaigns from the US Revolution onwards. We aren't that good at it and depend upon our Citizen Soldiers to learn about the People of a Nation and help adapt democracy to their circumstances and outlook. That extreme end is also when it is recognized as a *failure*, as seen in the Haiti involvement from 1915-34. So, including the war and beginning of counter-insurgency and starting up a new civil society we are at a point where such was not fully stood up or trusted in Japan, Germany, Haiti, Philippines, US South and not even to the point of winning the US Revolutionary war. We forget that in Japan the US kept a large number of forces there for a decade after the war to ensure that a new Imperial government did not find its way to power. We still *have* troops in Germany. Maybe, someday, they will be ready to ask us to leave and stand on their own like Japan has been working out with us the past few years...

What the Armed Forces of *today* have achieved would be the envy of all preceding generations of the US Armed Forces in similar situations. Pure fantasy to think so much could be done in so little time with so few casualties, even given proportionate scale of force sizes. So few forces doing so much in so little time... to so much recrimination.

jacksonian.

Good comments. Too bad the first Democrat Pres wasn't still roaming the WH...if he were, maybe even the Dhimmicrats could muster some spine?

docjim505: Yep, leaving a mass murderer in charge of a country is A-OK with the left.

Yeah, just like that arch-lefty in the '80's who said the United States "could not afford to allow Iraq to lose the war to Iran" and that the United States "would do whatever was necessary and legal to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran"

That lefty - what was his name? it's on the tip of my tongue, I'll get it soon - had a better sense of regional balance of power than Bush the Younger.

Another well known lefty, Bush the Elder, (you Americans really love your aristocracy, huh?) also refrained from regime change when he had the chance. I can only suppose he got some briefings on the likely long-term consequences.

Clinton's policy of containment also worked well. It was expensive and it was annoying and it cost lives - the only things you can say in favour of it was that it was less expensive, less annoying and cost fewer lives than the John Wayne style alternatives.

Oh! I remember now! The arch-lefty who wanted to ensure that Iraq did not lose the war with Iran was Reagan. Ronald Reagan, remember him?

docjim505, read up on some history - I suggest that British diplomacy with respect to Europe in the Victorian era might be a good place to start. Supporting a balance of power doesn't mean you like both parties, or even that you think things are just fine the way they are. Balance of power politics means you try and keep other parties in balance, so that everybody tries to win your favour or at least refrains from bugging you too much.

jiHymas wrote (April 6, 2007 01:55 PM):

... read up on some history - I suggest that British diplomacy with respect to Europe in the Victorian era might be a good place to start. Supporting a balance of power doesn't mean you like both parties, or even that you think things are just fine the way they are. Balance of power politics means you try and keep other parties in balance, so that everybody tries to win your favour or at least refrains from bugging you too much.

You mean the balance of power that led to World War I and around 40 million casualties? That balance of power?

How about the balance of power that we tried to maintain with the Soviet Union after World War II. You remember: the one that had every person in the world living in the shadow of nuclear holocaust for a half century? The one that allowed millions in communist countries to be slaughtered or starved to death?

Or perhaps you prefer the balance of power (which ultimately proved not much of a balance at all) that preceded World War II?

Now, there's no denying that countries can't always have things the way they want them, and sometimes have to cuddle up with unsavory allies. Given a choice between Iraq and Iran in the '80s, we chose Iraq. Given a choice between Diem and Ho Chi Mihn, we chose Diem. Given a choice between Hitler and Stalin, we chose Stalin. Given a choice between the imperialist, colonialist British and French and the Central Powers, we chose the British and French. I don't think Louis XV was exactly overjoyed to fund and support the anti-monarchist Americans with our gonzo ideas of (yech) democracy, but he took the opportunity to stick it to the hated English.

You wax enthusiastic over the virtues of cutting deals with scum and "containment", which gets back to my original point:

Yep, leaving a mass murderer in charge of a country is A-OK with the left. First of all, "stability" has become their holy grail (nazi Germany was stable; DAMN FDR for going to war with them and upsetting the apple cart!). Second of all, Saddam represents the kind of government they want: totalitarianism. They loved Stalin and Mao and Che, too. If you've got to exterminate a few thousand (or a few million) people to have stability or the government of the proletariate or whatever, that's totally cool with them.

Tell me: if we handed Iraq (or any other country) over to the tender mercies of a Stalin or a Hitler or another Saddam, how many of their citizens could they slaughter on a regular basis before your moral outrage would outweigh your love affair with stability?

I suggest that a healthy respect for balance of power and limits to do-goodism have enabled many more people to live their own lives than any intervention.

As for other countries slaughtering their own citizens - none of my business. I would much rather everybody lived in sweetness and light, but if they don't want to, that's all right as long as they don't bug me.

Intervention rarely works. And - in the specific instance of Bush the Younger's legacy, which is what sparked this discussion - we have a reversal of a bi-partisan foreign policy followed by three presidents (perhaps more) that has made things much worse, not just for the average Iraqi, but for the average American.

jihymas,
maintaining a balance of power is an abstraction. But in the case of iraq and Iran it wasn't all that balanced. was it? And it would be insane to maintain a status quo so agains our national interest for some abstract notion of a balance of power when the reality of the situation is anything but balanced.

Remember it was Iraq's invasion of Kuwait that started the whole problem with Iraq. . Wasn't the left against our dealing with Iraq in the first place? Isn't that where the whole blood for oil thing started from? wasnt' invading Kuwait though upsetting the delicate balance of power in the region though? Now the libs talk about how we had to contain Iraq and how containment was great, but at the time the left was perfectly happy with letting Iraq upset the delicate balance so long as we didn't go to war. When Bush went to war with a coalition of countries this time around, America was acting unilaterally and there needed to be an international test, yet when we got an even bigger coalition the last time, thus presumably passing the internation test, the war still was declared as an evil war for Oil.

Maintaining containment caused us to have to bring in troops into SA and that led to Osama targeting the US. Also it caused the UN to sanction Iraq leading to the death of all those chidren. Again, the left was against the sanctions and what was necessary to contain Iraq and maintain that balance, because of course the left is about as consistent as the wind. Only now when war was again imminent did the libs do a 180 and suddenly say that containment was hunky dory. Containment Worked! Yeah, no thanks to the left who was against any measure that would bring Iraq in line.

THe point though is, at the time of the Iraq war everyone from all administrations who dealt with Iraq, be they dems or repubs to the UN that sanctioned Iraq 16 times and maintained no fly zones for years was convinced that Iraq was a threat. Otherwise the whole Iraqi Liberation act signed off on by clinton, gore and the dems in 1998 makes no sense.
(And by the way, to what do you attribute their suggesting that Iraq was continuing to build WMD's and that a regime change was necessary then - were they acting out of conviction, or were they trying to line the pockets of Haliburton? Did clinton wag the dog because of Monica or did he legitatemly view Iraq as a threat? Did Clinton suggsest there was a linkage between Iraq and Al Qaeda (and initiate a bombing campaign) because he was tring to hype a nonexistent threat or because he legitimitaly felt there was a connnection there? I'd appreciate your responses. Bush dindn't concont or trick anyone into believing Iraq was a terrorist state that was trying to procure WMD's. This was the commone narrative that we lived through under two terms of Clinton and Gore. And yet somehow it was a moral outrage taht Gore lost. If it was all about blood for oil, and its established by the left that Sadaam was innnocent then why would electing Gore be something good? Because it was the Clintons and Gore's that sanctioned IRaq (and according to the left commited genocide on the iraqi babies) and it was the Clintons and Gores that were all about regime change in 1998 for the exact same reasons as Bush supposedly concocted years later.

But don't talk to me about balance of power in the middle east. Iraq didn't respect a balance of power considering they invaded Kuwait, and Iran with its proxy wars and assistance in attempting to topple govts in Lebanon with their partner Syria (who got away with occupying another country in the ME with nary a peep from anyone on the left). And lets not forget the funding of any number of terrorist groups by Iraq, Iran, Syria and nearly every other country in the ME to wage against Israel. All that's going on under your guise of balance of power, and it in fact reveals not a balance of power, but rogue countries themselves trying to shift the balance of power by kiling democracy in Lebanon, or murdering the evil Jews in Israel.

Iraq had to be dealt with because they, despite being contained by the UN which supposedly reflected the solidarity of the world community, continued to defy the world and maintain their stance and continued to try to procure WMD.s or at least pretend to procure WMD's. And Iran is on a similar course with its reckless, beligerent pursuit of Nuclear Weapons. Don't talk to me about mainttaing a proper balance against a country that defies not just the US but the world, says that there shoudl be a world without Israel and the zionists, and funds worldwide terror, kidnaps hostages in foreign waters, blows up embassies in other countries, and assists Syria in murdering democratically elected leaders.
If you were for maintaining a balance of power, and recognize that now that Sadaam was out of power there's a vacuum that had to be filled, otherwise countries like Iran would get the upper hand you'd be the first to suggest that we had to prop up Iraq to maintain that balance. But you'r not.. Your talk about a balance of power is just a talking point. It's as contradictory as all of the lefty slogans. We need an international test, yet when the test was there and the international community went to war against IRaq in the first place it was nothing but an imperialist war for oil. And its jsut as contradictiory as being against sanctions or any tought actions against Iraq until war is imminent and then shouting that containment worked. And its just as contradictory as saying the war was done on the cheap but then at the same time saying that we've already spent x number of billions of dollars. Everything is double speak wiht you and your ilk.

jNymas AMEN!! - excellent reasoned post - Balence of Pwoer is a DOCTRINE - not an abstraction jjr565.

A doctrine which is REALITY BASED and not idiologically-fantasy based, as the Neocon one is.

There will be no Demcracy Dominoe thoery in the real world. Their might have been had we let Populare US Culture win out arond the world and waited 50 yrs to let it happen - but the Gunboat Democracy imposition by Tank crowd blew that opportunity out of the water.

"Wasn't the left against our dealing with Iraq in the first place?"

NO - Rewritting history I see jr565.
No the left fully supported invading Kuwait to free it fom Iraq - which we all agreed had violated internaional law when she illegaly crossed international boarders and occupied Kuwait. It had support fromthe left due to the illegal action of Iraq and the legal coalition of UN Nations to counter it.

Isn't that where the whole blood for oil thing started from?

NO jr - you attempt to re-write histroy AGAIN is noted. No the 'blood for oil" accusation started with Boy King Goerge's second illegal invasion of Iraq proper. NOT Gulf War related.

"wasnt' invading Kuwait though upsetting the delicate balance of power in the region though?"

NO jr!! the INVASION OF KUWAIT BY IRAQ WAS UPSETTING THE BALENCE. THE UN/US SIMPLY REINSTATED THE BALENCE OF POWER WHEN WE FORCED IRAQ BACK TO HER PROPER BOARDERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THAT!!! IS WHY WE DID NOT GO INTO IRAQ THE FIRST TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!DOING SO WOULD HAVE (AS WE CAN ALL SEE TODAY THANKS TO BOY KING'S BLUNDER) UPSET THE BALENCE OF POWER - just like Iraq had done when it occupied Kuwait!

"Now the libs talk about how we had to contain Iraq and how containment was great, but at the time the left was perfectly happy with letting Iraq upset the delicate balance so long as we didn't go to war."

More re-writing history (willfully?????????). No JR the "left" fully supported the Gulf War - we know that it is illegal to invaded other soveriegn Nations (an thing the right appearenty does not believe).

"When Bush went to war with a coalition of countries this time around,"

there was no LEGAL coalition - the Security Council had not rulled upon the proper course of action to deal with Iraq violations of the UN rez. (Chimpy cancelled the request for a vote when Chile/Mexico/Germany/Russia and France all threatened to veto)The US has no authority to act in the UN's name unilaterally and without the UN's permission. that is why the invasion by JR was and remains illegal. and the coalition a fiction - made up of nations like Togo and company. All bullshit aside the "Coalition" (which is illegal) is basically made up of the US and the UK.

"America was acting unilaterally"

this time around YES!!! - not for Gulf War ONE however (why do you re-write history??????)

"and there needed to be an international test, yet when we got an even bigger coalition the last time,"

WTF????????????? the coalition was much more REAL and CREDIBLE with Gulf War ONE!!!!!!

"thus presumably passing the internation test, the war still was declared as an evil war for Oil."

What fuckign "international test? - Chist WTF are you blabbing about?

There is ONE TEST AND ONE TEST ONLY.
Iraq ilelgally invaded another soveriegn Nation - KUWAIT. That action resulted in the UN voting too invaded Kuwait to free it from Iraq.

- NOW WE HAVE PLAYED THE PART OF IRAQ THIS TIME AROUND - Who will invaded Iraq to free it from US I wonder?

.....................................

oh ya don't tell me!!!..............its all KLINTOONS FAULT!!!!!!!!!!!!