This war is a good thing

[ClakarEQ]

Lots would call you a hypocrit Gaazy, not me though, I'm in the same boat as you in that regard.

What angers me most is the pointless end of thousands of lives. These people are dieing for NO GOOD REASON.

I never got the response I wanted, but I'm ok with that.

It is a lot of wasted life though, a real shame it is, especially knowing that the US isn't done doing one of the things we do best, WASTE. It really strikes a cord though knowing we are wasting real lives over there.

I was expecting some folks to actual debate the point of wasted life. Kind of supprised someone hasn't taken my bait.

All this WMD shit is pointless. It doesn't matter now. We are there, and we should leave, now. The mess we leave will be no different now or 5 years from now, or 10 years from now. The longer we wait, the more we'll waste.

[Evermore]

most are past this point clarke, its time to cut losses and get out. the best thing gthat can happen right now is to divide iraq into area where each faction has control and then let them work it out.

[Zanchief]

most are past this point clarke, its time to cut losses and get out. the best thing gthat can happen right now is to divide iraq into area where each faction has control and then let them work it out.

If this happens it will be worse there than when you first got in. That would be catastrophic IMO.

[Tuggan]

probably not catastrophic... it would just give all the money and power (oil) to the kurds.

[Phlegm]

probably not catastrophic... it would just give all the money and power (oil) to the kurds.

Most of the oil is to the south where most of the shiite muslims are.

[Evermore]

most are past this point clarke, its time to cut losses and get out. the best thing gthat can happen right now is to divide iraq into area where each faction has control and then let them work it out.

If this happens it will be worse there than when you first got in. That would be catastrophic IMO.

its already worse then when we got in. I cant see how this could do any more damage. the whole situation is a total loss and iraq has totally collapsed. our troops are the only reason this isnt another Darfur ( sp) the balkans broke up like this and are doing reasonably well.

[Tuggan]

Most of the oil is to the south where most of the shiite muslims are.

eh, the "super giant" oil fields for the most part are all north of baghdad.

[Arlos]

Nobody made up lies. There was no jury rigging of intel. The only jury rigging we know of was a left wing Ambassador who abused his wife's position to get a fake trip that actually verified Iraq was trying to buy yellow cake, and then used his covertly supported fake trip to attack the administration via public NY Times article on a supposedly secret trip.

What fucking bizarro-world did you come from? The trip proved that the administration's story about them trying to buy yellowcake was COMPLETELY fabricated. Not only did it prove that it was fabricated, they were able to show that the Brits already knew that, and had TOLD the CIA this. Then when the administration used that information anyway in the State of the Union address, despite his report was false, he had the temerity to go to the NY Times and have an article published about what he knew and when he knew it. This so enraged Cheney, et al, they outted his wife as a CIA agent, which is why Scooter Libby is currently swinging from his nuts, and Cheney WOULD be if he wasn't VP.

Personally, I believe that at the time of the invasion, Saddam did *NOT* have WMDs any more. Remember, our OWN inspectors found ZERO evidence that he had even RE-STARTED the programs, much less had accumulated huge stockpiles. The adminstration made its case from intel from non-crosschecked sources who had personal axes to grind and reasons to lie, like that real winner, "Curveball", etc.

Evermore: While I agree with you that there is a certain amount of logic to splitting up the country into 3 parts and divide them up that way, it's not a practicable solution, really. For one, it would create an independant Kurdistan on the border with Turkey. Unfortunately, Turkey has openly stated tht they will NEVER accept such a state being on their borders, for fears of them rousing tensions and uprising among their own local kurd populations, etc. Odds are not inconsequential that they would invade such a kurdish state to remove it from the map, which would put us and Turkey at each other's throat, which would be catastrophic.

So, honestly I don't know what the solution is, or even that there IS one, to be honest. If we coudl turn back the time machine to 2003 and prevent us from ever invading, sure, but I don't think that that's exactly possible, unfortunately.

-Arlos

[Phlegm]

Most of the oil is to the south where most of the shiite muslims are.

eh, the "super giant" oil fields for the most part are all north of baghdad.

Maybe you are right. I thought most of the oil wells are near Basra in the south.

Iraq's Oil Reserves

Around 1,000 of Iraq's 1,500 oil wells are located in its southern region. The oil there is classified as the higher-quality "sweet crude," which contains a lower percentage of hydrogen sulfide and is believed to burn cleaner. Before the war, the Rumaila oil field yielded the greatest quantity of oil in the south. Other major fields include Zubair, West Qurna and Bin Umar.

In the North, the Kirkuk oil field, first discovered by the British in the 1920s, contains up to 10 billion barrels of oil, and, at its peak, produced at least one million barrels per day. This field -- located just south of the no-fly zone in a predominantly Kurdish and Turkmen area -- supplied as much as half of Iraq's pre-war oil exports. The second largest northern field in the region is Bai Hassan, which produces about 110,000 barrels per day.

[Lyion]

The White House never leaked Plames name, Richard Armitage at State outed her. Explain to me why Scooter Libby is on trial, and Armitage isn't? Ah, right, because she wasn't covert. It's a fact. Just like the Veep never sent her husband on this trip so he could write Op Eds for the NY Times, obviously, nor did the CIA director or anyone who had any responsibility. Bizarro is buying into this whole hogwash story.

Then we get back to the 9/11 Report you love to quote over and over which went over the trip report and found it SUPPORTED the assertations made by the CIA, in the miniscule amount of fact finding that it actually did.

The White house didn't MAKE or CHANGE anything with Intel. it used IDENTICAL intelligence that the members of congress saw. Did the Intel suck? Obviously it was off because we haven't found anything. Although, you cooly ignore the simple truth we gave Saddam almost a year head start to try and move, hide, or destroy them. Dictatorships aren't as transparent as democracies, even if ones ex National Security Advisors illegally steal and shred documents pertaining to these things.

At the start of the invasion, and even beforehand there is a chance Saddam had no WMDs. Why wouldn't he allow inspectors in, then, and why did he violate the sanctions put on him?

The solution in Iraq is to have the State Department take over, remove the military command structure and to ensure we have timetables and measurables for training and leaving in place, and stick to those unless there's an awfully good reason not to. Honestly, I wouldn't care if we broke Iraq into three disparate countries. The only reason that isn't on the table is we're catering to Turkey too much.

Just to be completely factual, I believed we'd find WMDS and that was the basis for my initial support for the war. That was definitely wrong. I believe this was waged for the right reasons, but those reasons indeed were wrong.

[ClakarEQ]

Can we not stop the finger pointing regarding how we got there, it is pointless.

To this end, why would it be worse if we leave now vs 5 years from now?

How do we make that situation "better". Lets get some good ideas here, maybe someone will have a great idea that we can all write to our congressman

[Lyion]

The solution in Iraq is to have the State Department take over, remove the military command structure and to ensure we have timetables and measurables for training and leaving in place, and stick to those unless there's an awfully good reason not to. Honestly, I wouldn't care if we broke Iraq into three disparate countries. The only reason that isn't on the table is we're catering to Turkey too much.

[Arlos]

The White house didn't MAKE or CHANGE anything with Intel. it used IDENTICAL intelligence that the members of congress saw.

No, the WHITE HOUSE itself did not, I will grant you that. Of course, they had appointed people elsewhere that *DID*, but you're right, the white house itself didn't alter the intel, because it had alerady been fixed and altered by the time it got there. The fact that all of it that actually reached the white house was items that completely supported their pre-existing positions is sheer coincidence, of course. Really. Honest.

The one thing the white house DID do was use public statements to tie Iraq in to 9/11, and did so repeatedly. This is irrefuteable, you merely have to go look at old speeches pre-war, and as the war got started. Hell, there's tape of Cheney saying "We keep saying there are links between them because there ARE links between them." Of course no such links existed, nor had they ever existed, and such was well known. To everyone but the White House and that specific agency at the pentagon, apparently....

At the start of the invasion, and even beforehand there is a chance Saddam had no WMDs. Why wouldn't he allow inspectors in, then, and why did he violate the sanctions put on him?

Because if he allowed the inspectors in, he would appear weak. He was trying to set himself up as the Strongman of the middle east, who had already thumbed his nose at the US, and effectively gotten away with it. Kowtowing to US (yes, technically UN, but everyone knows who was driving them) demands would have weakened him in the eyes of the people he was trying to convince.

As for ignoring sanctions, he's hardly unique among Dictators in doing such a thing, yes? Since when did Dictators feel that laws, even international ones, applied to them in any way? Of course he's going to circumvent the sanctions. a) Because they inconvenienced him, and b) because letting it be known he was doing so, and getting away with it, was another way of raising his status. Hell, look how much status the leader of Hezbollah has gained in the arab world after bloodying Israel's nose during Israel's moronic and incredibly ill-advised campaign this past summer?

As for Turkey, it amuses me you put it that way, as it shows you've not learned any of the lessons of the war, and retain your self-absorbed belief that what the US wants should always take premacy, and that everyone else should bow to our wishes. Sorry, but unilateralism doesn't work in the world today, period. It's what got us into Iraq in the first place, all smokescreen and sugar-coating of "Coalition of the Willing" aside.

Lets see, an ally, indeed, an IMPORTANT ally tells us that the one thing they, as a nation, will never support is the creation of an independant Kurdistan. That if we do that, they will have no choice but to cease being our ally, because it is just that important to them. ANd here you come along and say that the US not creating an independant Kurdistan is "catering" to Turkey "too much"? Such arrogance boggles the mind. I mean, I know you're a hard-right Hawk, but advocating abrogating important alliances and ignoring the wishes of important allies just because it inconveniences the US? Wow....

-Arlos

[Evermore]

The solution in Iraq is to have the State Department take over, remove the military command structure and to ensure we have timetables and measurables for training and leaving in place, and stick to those unless there's an awfully good reason not to.

i dont see this doing much. its like a finger in the dyke.