Iraq War - Lose/Lose for the US

[J-Excel]

Well, they did it. The Bush administration took what should have been a quick liberation of Iraq and turned it into a worldwide fiasco. Now, it seems, Bush loses if he does nothing and loses if he goes in. I don't see any way for a positive outcome from an attack on Iraq. Yea, we will rid the world of a menace and probably get some cheap oil out of it, but we will end up being the bad guy. Had we gone in much earlier and did what we needed to do most of the world would have been happy that we did it. Now, we are being perceived as bullies using 911 as an excuse to topple the current government there mainly for ulterior motives.

Anyone see it differently?

[Chuckiechan]

It was Powell's idea to go back to the UN for another vote. He may have been covering is tail for a future run for president. Bush took his advice even though it was bad, brecause of Powells' insistance. He has to give the Democrats a lower profile target in 2008 against Hillary.

We talk about outcomes and worldwide damage, but no one tells me what it is! I don't buy it.

[RADAR1797]

No worries after the shooting is over and everyone sees a liberated democratic Iraq, we will enjoy a few years of respect from even the French. Given time, the world will go back to hating us because we are beautiful. Clubmed should respond, I hope he is not recovering from tear gas.

-RADAR

[willy_ph]

If the US goes in there will be many consequences for the Near/Middle East. Muslim uprisings will occur in many countries, toppling secular governments. They will then be replaced by fundamentalist governments.

IMO, it's easier to leave him alone. He won't live forever.

[RADAR1797]

I suspect the opposite will happen in Iran, the religious leaders will fall to uprising. Saudi Arabia may be different only time will tell.

-RADAR

[Chuckiechan]

I think the only governments toppeling are going to be the fundamentalist muslim's. Especially Iran (to tilt West), eventually Saudi Arabia (tilt West). People want freedom, they see it on cable and in magazines, letters from relatives in the US, Radio, Internet.

As we show these countries the error of their ways by harboring terriorists, we will cut off the funding and safe-harbors that these groups enjoy. The radical muslem movement is going to be extinguished, and this murderous cult will crawl back it's hole until the next Democratic administration.

[J-Excel]

A fundamentalist Iran would be in a world of hurt if we own both Iraq and Afganistan.

[reticent]

Alright, the anti-war movement REALLY needs to get their act together!

Are we moving too fast or are we moving too slow? Can you not make up your minds?

The arguements I often see say we are moving too FAST! To me, 12, going on 13 years, is pretty darn slow.

Now, some are saying we are moving too slowly?

I guess I should learn to expect contradictions from these people. They constantly contradict facts, it only took time before they began contradicting themselves as well...

[reticent]

Uhm, sorry to burst your bubble, but we don't own anything in the ME. Does anyone know anything about South America? People said we were colonizing there. We merely toppled totalitarian regimes and turned them onto Democracy. Do we now own any part of SA? No. as a matter of fact, we GAVE Panama our only possession, which we PURCHASED decades and decades before. SA is much better off, now than they were before our hand touched their countries.

Originally posted by Chuckiechan
It was Powell's idea to go back to the UN for another vote. He may have been covering is tail for a future run for president. Bush took his advice even though it was bad, brecause of Powells' insistance. He has to give the Democrats a lower profile target in 2008 against Hillary.

We talk about outcomes and worldwide damage, but no one tells me what it is! I don't buy it.

1) Secretary Powell was totally against an armed conflict and for a negotiated settlement until recent evidence against Iraq made him change his mind.

2) Bush, on the other hand, has always been for an armed conflict and has been very vocal much before Powell changed his stance. In fact, it looked like Powell was going to be sidelined for his apparent disagreement with the GOP hardliners.

3) If anyone needs to cover his backside its Bush. He has got himself cornered via logo paedia . By digging in his heels and risking not only his personal image/prestige but also that of the Presidency and indeed of the whole country, he finds himself in a mess today, no matter what he does. Had he been less vocal in his threats and gauged the international mood in a subtle manner, it would have stood him in good stead, not given away too much to the enemy. And this would have given him international level status. The downside, of course, would have been much less publicity for him. Bush fails to see the BIG picture.

He also lacks the depth and breadth of stature, personality, and leadership required, indeed demanded, of the most powerful and important nation in the world. Bush chooses, repeatedly, to ignore this and go about it like a modern day cowboy.

2008 is still far. Bush is more concerned with saving his own skin now for the 2004. With economy in a major slump with no end in sight, a potentially catastrophic war around the corner, he is a worried man.

To blame it on his advisors is just puerile.

As a great US President in the 20th century said: "The Buck Stops Here". (Teddy Roosevelt???)

I wonder when Bush will start blaming everyone.