It was just such a waste. It looks like the current crop of republicans are all set to do it again. It makes a difference when you take the politics of the DOD.

Hussein had a very limited capacity for offense which we proved in Gulf War 1. His greatest enemy was Iran, and that hatred tied both of them up for decades. He was an evil dictator but there were worse, there were guys easier to take down, and there were guys more vital to our interests to take down. When Tge administration named Iraq as a target post 9/11 his own cabinet and security council asked if they heard him correctly. It was incomprehensible to them except for a handful of zealots. This is what they said on camera in the Frontline interviews. And if it didn't make sense to the experts then, how can it possibly make sense now?

Anonymous wrote:I think THE question is whether taking down Hussein was in our national interest in the first place.

I think that would be one of the first questions, but I'm sure PP would say "yes." Then we'd still be left with all the questions about whether this was good ethically and practically.

There are lots of things in our national interests to which we don't devote such time, lives, and resources. Even assuming it was in our interest, there must be hundreds or thousands of things more important to us. If the Cheney administration had told everyone that it would take this many lives, dollars, and years, they would have been laughed out of the hearings.

ah yes! the "friendly dictators"

very much a part of the USA past! We love you one minute (despite the atrocities committed) and then will kill you off as soon as you do something we don't like

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so the question is, could the US have gotten Saddam without the war (Libya style)? and what would have been the result.

I think not.

Why on earth would we have wanted to take him out, the poor dear? Remember what a good friend of the US he was, back when we were selling him weapons through the nose to fight Iran during the Iran-Iraq war and to gas his Kurdish population? Remember the pix (I think it was of Rumsfeld?) cordially shaking hands with him?

I guess all good things must come to an end when your oil company patrons' interests are at loggerheads with those of your armaments' suppliers. You can always cheat on your wife (presumably, the American electorate) with your mistress, but having multiple mistresses starts to get very messy.

Anonymous wrote:so the question is, could the US have gotten Saddam without the war (Libya style)? and what would have been the result.

I think not.

Why on earth would we have wanted to take him out, the poor dear? Remember what a good friend of the US he was, back when we were selling him weapons through the nose to fight Iran during the Iran-Iraq war and to gas his Kurdish population? Remember the pix (I think it was of Rumsfeld?) cordially shaking hands with him?

I guess all good things must come to an end when your oil company patrons' interests are at loggerheads with those of your armaments' suppliers. You can always cheat on your wife (presumably, the American electorate) with your mistress, but having multiple mistresses starts to get very messy.

I think THE question is whether taking down Hussein was in our national interest in the first place.

Anonymous wrote:so the question is, could the US have gotten Saddam without the war (Libya style)? and what would have been the result.

No, I wouldn't call that THE question. THE question might be, "Was it all worth it?" There are good ethical arguments that even that question misses the point.

On your question, though, I'd like to believe that if we had devoted 10 years, $1 trillion, and 5,000 American lives to assassinating him instead, then yes, we would have. I'm inclined to think it would have taken far less money and incomparably fewer lives.

Alternatively, maybe we could have just paid him $500 billion to leave and saved the time, the lives, and half the money.

Typical. Bush made the deal (after getting us into this mess, but that's another rant). Now the Republicans are mad that Obama is going to keep "our" promise.

You think they'd be cheering if Obama announced today that he was going to extend our presence in Iraq?

Anonymous wrote:If Obama met with Jesus, the GOP candidates would accuse him of an election year stunt, tell us how he mishandled the exchange, and how it helped our enemies.

Face facts. Iraq gave our troops no immunity after 2011. This was decided under Bush and didn't change under Obama. While the GOP bobbleheads go on about how this may erase our "progress" in Iraq (hahahaha) the Iraqis want us out, so out we go. Apparently they view possible chaos as "progress" over occupation.

Would the US give immunity to troops from Iraq? No, we wouldn't. Soldiers should not be given immunity and they should be held to a high standard of military conduct.

If Obama met with Jesus, the GOP candidates would accuse him of an election year stunt, tell us how he mishandled the exchange, and how it helped our enemies.

Face facts. Iraq gave our troops no immunity after 2011. This was decided under Bush and didn't change under Obama. While the GOP bobbleheads go on about how this may erase our "progress" in Iraq (hahahaha) the Iraqis want us out, so out we go. Apparently they view possible chaos as "progress" over occupation.

so the question is, could the US have gotten Saddam without the war (Libya style)? and what would have been the result.

I think not.

Mission accomplished!

Obama's number one goal right now is re-election. To paraphrase something someone once said, the first victim of a re-election campaign is the truth. Here are a couple of things to keep in mind each time you hear "Obama is pulling our troops out of Iraq":

1) The agreement under which the troops are withdrawing was signed in 2008. Does anybody remember who was president in 2008? I'll give you a hint. It wasn't Obama.

2) The Obama administration has been trying to extend the agreement and postpone withdrawal. Specifically, Obama wanted to keep 5,000 military "trainers" in Iraq. The Iraqi Parliament refused to approve that plan or to approve the US demand that the troops be given immunity from Iraqi law. So, this is sort of a case of Obama saying to the Iraqis, "You can't fire me, I quit." Nevertheless, Obama is still trying to negotiate an agreement to allow the trainers to stay.

3) As the troops leave, the State Department is beefing up a security force that will be manned by thousands of contractors who will be armed with aircraft, armored vehicles, and other military hardware. See this article for more info about that:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/07/21/97915/state-dept-planning-to-field-a.html

So, Obama is being forced by the Iraqis to implement Bush's plan. That's the bottom line regardless of how each side tries to spin it.

Anonymous wrote:How is this possible with 71 days left in the year? Will we leave all materiel there, again, to be used against the US when we have to go back?

Election on the horizon and Obama "keeps" his promise. More than a day late and a dollar short.

What do you mean by that? He is on the exact timetable promised. This is from February of 2009: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/27/AR2009022700566.html

I guess his detractors will always try to find something wrong with what he does. But the bottom line is he set a goal for Iraq (which seemed really freaking important back in 2008) and he's meeting it. Wish I could say the same of the Bush Administration. They estimated the cost of the Iraq war at $80 billion. Oops!

How is this possible with 71 days left in the year? Will we leave all materiel there, again, to be used against the US when we have to go back?

Election on the horizon and Obama "keeps" his promise. More than a day late and a dollar short.