JP wrote on October 26, 2007 01:14 PM: John F,



I mentioned the votes of the senate and reps to illustrate that A-Bush had the approval of both houses of congress, so it is impossible to blame him and only him for invading Iraq. B-It passed both houses by a substantial margin, so it wasn't lunacy, if it were, it would not have passed.



Yeah, some of them might want their vote back, but unless we invent a time machine...



What makes me think that the Iraqi people are interested in Democracy? I have seen the Iraqi people go and vote in huge numbers 3 times.



Iraq will be dominated by the US b/c there will be at least 50,000 troops there for at least the next decade.



You got me on the Clinton/Osama timeline. I admit my mistake and I stand corrected. Here comes the big but......BUT the first World Trade Center bombing occurred early in 1993. The culprits? Islamofacists. We got lucky that day. They didn't have enough explosives to bring the building down, otherwise it would have been worse than 9-11. Clinton should have started the war on terror that day.



As far as becoming more secure: To me, Iraq occasionally threatening the border of Kuwait(where we had a bunch of troops at the time), firing on our aircraft in the no fly zone, planning terrorist strikes against the US (according to Russain intel) are threats to this country.



I don't know when the war will be over, but given a choice between a short war with huge casualites (WWII) or a long, drawn-out war with (not to sound heartless) far fewer casualties, I will take the latter everytime.



Destabilize the region? The region wasn't that stable to begin with.



The turks have not crossed the border yet.

John F wrote on October 25, 2007 04:31 PM: JP,

It was absurd to invade Iraq, regardless of how many in Congress voted for it. Please don't tell me that all of a sudden you believe that we shoud rely on their judgment. How many of them would have voted against it if, like Hillary, they had known then what they know now.

Iraq will end up being partitioned into Kurdish, Shiite, and Sunni zones which will be dominated by the Turks, Iranians, and Saudis, respectively. It will be a very shaky, tenuous thing, not at all what the Pres had in mind I don't think.

What is it that you have seen in Iraq that makes you think that Iraqis want democracy unless it is used to create a theocracy?

As for Osama, Peter Bergen of CNN had this to say:

"there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently. The real story here is the CIA didn't really have a clue about who this guy was until 1996 when they set up a unit to really start tracking him."

So Clinton didn't have eight years to do something about him as you suggested.

Finally, as for this war ever making us safer than we were before we invaded....

Iraq did not pose a threat to us before we invaded. They had no troops on our borders, they had no weapons with which to attack us. They were not a haven for al Qaeda. What outcome to this war could possibly make Iraq less of a threat to us afterwards?

John F wrote on October 25, 2007 11:35 AM: JP,

How many of those Congressmen and Senators would vote for that resolution if, like Hillary, they knew then what they know now?

There were still a substantial number who warned us that this was the wrong way to go (myself included, but the RJ chose not to publish my letters). If Iraq stabilizes, it will likely be along ethnic/sectarian lines with a Turkish dominated Kurdish population (Turkey is getting set to invade even as we speak), an Iranian dominated Shiite population, and a Saudi dominated Sunni population. I don't think this is what the Pres had in mind.

As far as the possibility that we'll be more secure after this war is over I have two questions. One, do you have any idea when that might be? And two, Iraq wasn't threatening us before the invasion. How can they possibly be less of a threat, no matter how successful we ultimately end up being?

Beytovin,

I agree that the theocrats in Iran can't possibly hold on to power forever, but the invasion of Iraq strengthened their position internally by giving them an external threat to unite their population. The day of their demise is now farther away than it would have been had we not invaded Iraq.

JP wrote on October 25, 2007 09:37 AM: Jon Hamel,

My posts to you have been overly terse and sarcastic. Apologies. I stick by my positions.

JP wrote on October 25, 2007 09:35 AM: Hey John F,

Maybe I would be better off if I had a different hobby than politics.

I may be wrong, but I don't remember OBL emerging during Bush I. Is this right? I will have to check this out.

A lot of Senators (77, I think) and over 218 reps (that is the majority of the house, I can't remember the actual number) voted for the use of force measure against Iraq/Hussein. So a lot of people in our leadership were on board for this. If it was so absurd to do this, it would not have passed congress so convincingly. The use of force measure against Iraq Hussein for Gulf War I passed by 1 vote in the Senate.

Yes, the war has been expensive in terms of casualties (heroes, every one) and dollars. Can one really demonstrate that a war has made us more secure DURING the war. I think this is not something that can be proven until after the war. Do you want to withdraw at this point? I think that would cause more problems than it will solve. What I am hoping for at this point is that Iraq stabilizes--which there are signs that it is--and is an anchor for democracy/capitalism and secularism in the Middle East. I don't think this is so far-fetched; it worked in Europe/Japan in Post WW2.

I am willing to concede, you might be right. It might have been a better idea to station a huge force in Kuwait, UAE, Qatar and Bahrain to threaten the Hussein Regime/Iran to comply with various 'stuff.' But unless we enter a alternate reality which took your course instead of mine, we'll never know.

Beytovin wrote on October 25, 2007 09:33 AM: Well, I've got a little more abstract take on the Iraq situation.

Iran might not be a world superpower, but the Iran situation has definitely been sour since the Islamic revolution. A case can be made that they're the most credible threat to US and her allies' interests in the region and beyond. The US is in Afghanistan. We're in Iraq. What is the mass between them? Iran. Surrounded by allies (I use the term loosely) with any appreciable military power-Turkey and Pakistan, Iran is essentially isolated.

Iran's population generally falls into two categories-an aging class full of religious dogma, currently holding (tenuously) power, and a growing younger, well-educated population eager to join the world stage. Iran can't possibly come close to competing with the West (US) economically, and to a lesser extent, militarily. By applying the pressure of the fact that they're essentially surrounded, it's a matter of time before they (current regime) can no longer afford to hold on to power, and (gross oversimplification to save space) POOF, they implode like an old casino.

I don't think this is what GWB thought, but people around him with influence probably were thinking this way. I'm not sure we really underestimated anything by going into Iraq, except maybe exactly how long it would take to cool the engines, but it's too late to take a Mulligan anyways.

I know this is a simplistic explanation, but I'm limited to 300 words, and I'm supposed to be looking busy at work. Perhaps we should meet down at the Crown&Anchor to hash out our successful futures in the New World Order.

John F wrote on October 25, 2007 08:53 AM: Cool! We're going into a second day.


JP,

The intelligence report entitled "bin Laden Determined..." mentioned specifically that bin Laden was planning to use airplanes to facilitate his attack.

I am not, repeat not, trying to place blame on the President for 9-11 by bringing this up. There were plenty of indications that bin Laden meant to do us harm. Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II all had time to do something about bin Laden. Heck, the Bushes are friends with the bin Laden family.

Which brings up another question. How long must a President be in office before he can do anything of consequence for national security? If 8 months isn't enough, but two years is, we'd better look out in 2009 no matter who's elected.

Again, nobody's blaming Bush for 9-11, so why are Republicans so insistent that we blame Clinton?

I will admit that I'm attacking Bush as much as you're attacking Clinton, but I am attacking Bush for something for which he's responsible; namely, the invasion of Iraq. Ever since the occupation has descended into chaos there's been this steady stream of post hoc justifications coming from Republicans that have nothing to do with the casus belli that the President put forth prior to the war. This invasion has been a strategic disaster as many people - including GHW Bush and Colin Powell - had foreseen. It has destabilized the entire middle east and has empowered Iran. It has stretched our military almost to the breaking point and left us hundreds of billions of dollars in bills. Let's not forget the thousands upon thousands of America's best who have been killed or maimed. I defy you or anyonle else to demonstrate how this has made us more secure.

JP wrote on October 25, 2007 08:05 AM: To John Hamel,

'Horse Hockey' was not an arguement, it was an appropriate response to you for accusing me of living a lie. I did pose other arguements in my posts, you didn't post responses to them. As far as reading books that start with the thesis: "How can we blame America for this?" No thanks.

JP wrote on October 25, 2007 07:49 AM: John,

In response to your post from yesterday. I see our dispute is about to preempt or not to preempt. You say not, I say do. I did find an article on CNN yesterday that was about Russian intelligence warning the US that the Hussein regime was planning terrorist attacks against the US. You can check it out, it was easy to find. It probably isn't enough for you to change your mind-that we were provoked-but it works for me.

Occupations are not all bad. How long have we been occupying Japan, Germany/Europe and South Korea? We still do today. How many wars have occurred in these areas since we have occupied? Eventually, Iraq will calm down and the benefits of having a lot US troops occupying the Middle East will help stabilize the region and help it flourish econoically and politcally.

If you think about it, Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor and we attacked Japan AND Germany. Why? B/C it was the right thing to do. After 9-11 we attacked Al-Qaeda AND the Iraq. Why? B/C it was the right thing to do.

Jon Hamel wrote on October 25, 2007 07:03 AM: JP

"Horse Hocky" . . . well that was good argument.

The UNLV Economics professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe has written on this subject.

I have read most of his published books, and my comments about WW1 and Woodrow Wilson are part of his works.

Perhaps you might want to check the books out, they are a good read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Hermann_Hoppe

Democracy: The God That Failed

http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe4.html

JP . . . it is always worth while to look at the world from other people perspective. Often you find that the world is different than you thought it was.

Enjoy!

Read All Comments