The goal in Iraq is to establish a nation with a democratic government that is at peace with it's neighbors and with itself and does not represent a threat to the United States.

 

This the goal that has been stated numerous times by the Bush Administration.

The goal in Iraq is to establish a nation with a democratic government that is at peace with it's neighbors and with itself and does not represent a threat to the United States.

 

This the goal that has been stated numerous times by the Bush Administration.

I'm not sure I can even comment on this one. Wow...

The goal in Iraq is to establish a nation with a democratic government that is at peace with it's neighbors and with itself and does not represent a threat to the United States.

 

This the goal that has been stated numerous times by the Bush Administration.

 

Thats a lost cause.

I'm not sure I can even comment on this one. Wow...

 

That's been the goal from the beginning despite the never ending statements to the contrary. That's partially the fault of the Bush administration for not stating the goal more effectively and partially the fault of the MSM and the Democrats because even though they knew what the goal was they wanted to create the opposite impression because it suited their own political agenda.

 

I assume that the "wow" is because the lack of progress in achieving that goal. I knew that kind of response was coming and deservedly so. There are big problems in Iraq. However, I get tired of people parrotting the "we have no goal" in Iraq from people who I know are politically aware and therefore I am sure they have known what the goal in Iraq has been since before we even invaded Iraq because it was stated clearly before we invaded but those individuals chose to be intellectually dishonest.

Thats a lost cause.

 

I wouldn't go that far...

I wouldn't go that far...

At least 2,000 years tends to disagree...

There has been nearly 3000 (2955) fatalities of US Troops since the war began.

That's been the goal from the beginning despite the never ending statements to the contrary. That's partially the fault of the Bush administration for not stating the goal more effectively and partially the fault of the MSM and the Democrats because even though they knew what the goal was they wanted to create the opposite impression because it suited their own political agenda. [/b]

 

I thought the goal from the beginning was securing and destroying Saddam's WMD stockpiles, stopping Saddam's ongoing WMD programs, and severing his dubious ties to al Qaida. :confused: Of course, after we learned that he had no WMD stockpiles, no active WMD programs, and no signficant links to al Qaida, the goal became removing a brutal dictator from power and then it became establishing a beacon of democracy in the Middle East (which was curiously contrary to Bush's goal during the 2000 Presidential campaign not to use the U.S. military to do nation-building). I can't imagine why anyone would be confused about the U.S. goal in Iraq.

 

 

I assume that the "wow" is because the lack of progress in achieving that goal. I knew that kind of response was coming and deservedly so. There are big problems in Iraq. However, I get tired of people parrotting the "we have no goal" in Iraq from people who I know are politically aware and therefore I am sure they have known what the goal in Iraq has been since before we even invaded Iraq because it was stated clearly before we invaded but those individuals chose to be intellectually dishonest.

 

We have always had a goal in Iraq. Trouble is, it hasn't always been the same goal. We're now on about goal #5. The goal now appears to be trying to get out in a manner that, some how, some way saves face for the country and restores some shred of a legacy for George W Bush.

 

A more interesting discussion would be whether we have a strategy in Iraq (other than the apparent de facto strategy of providing the opposition with practice on live targets).

That's been the goal from the beginning despite the never ending statements to the contrary. That's partially the fault of the Bush administration for not stating the goal more effectively and partially the fault of the MSM and the Democrats because even though they knew what the goal was they wanted to create the opposite impression because it suited their own political agenda.

 

I assume that the "wow" is because the lack of progress in achieving that goal. I knew that kind of response was coming and deservedly so. There are big problems in Iraq. However, I get tired of people parrotting the "we have no goal" in Iraq from people who I know are politically aware and therefore I am sure they have known what the goal in Iraq has been since before we even invaded Iraq because it was stated clearly before we invaded but those individuals chose to be intellectually dishonest.

 

 

Actually I would say "wow" because it is an impossible goal to reach. The goal you just listed:

 

The goal in Iraq is to establish a nation with a democratic government that is at peace with it's neighbors and with itself and does not represent a threat to the United States.

 

is so broad in scope that it could not possibly be reached. Just break it down:

 

Establish a nation. That isn't very easy under the best of circumstances like when the revolution is from within the national culture. (Just look at our growing pains for an example) It's nearly impossible when it's an imposed nation from a foreign power.

 

Establish a nation with a democratic government. I'm assuming this means a government that looks like us, talks like us and acts like us. Again, that goal is rooted in "Wonderland." (the Carroll book not the place where John Holmes hung out in the late 70's ) You are talking about a democracy where none around it exists. It is a land that is more rooted in a theocratic state than a democratic one. Believe it or not, not everyone wants a republic. Just ask the Saudi's.

 

at peace with it's neighbors and with itself. How does that happen? For decades the Sunni's have practiced tribal warfare against the Shiites and we won't even mention the Kurds. Blood feuds that predate your nation aren't likely to go away because we are here to help you be a stable, free beacon of light. It has been naivete from the beginning to believe that outside forces getting rid of one dictator would not get sucked into the vaccum of people trying to find a new one.

 

does not represent a threat to the US. How big of a threat were they before Hussein was toppled? He was a bigger threat to Iran than to us. He was more talk than substance and the interior conflicts were held in check by his people. He gave money to terrorists. Probably. But so does Saudi Arabia and we aren't invading them.

 

Any of these goals would be great by themselves but to think that each and everyone of these goals is attainable in our lifetimes is to believe that life is a John Wayne movie where we just ride in and save the day. Even Reagan knew you only fight the battles you can win.

"We are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here."

 

I say, what the heck, by the time they swim over here they won't have much fight left in them anyway.

There is always going to be stupid rhetoric from both sides. Just as dumb as the current W. comment, there are just as many people excited the war is being "lost."

 

The best way I can sum up my thoughts on the whole situation: whether it is the right or wrong thing you are trying to accomplish, you cannot help an entire nation of people that does not want to be helped.

There has been nearly 3000 (2955) fatalities of US Troops since the war began.

Do a BGP search on Antietam.

Do a BGP search on Antietam.

 

 

Approximate # Union Confederate Total

Killed 2,100 1,550 3,650

Wounded 9,550 7,750 17,300

Missing/Captured 750 1,020 1,770

Total 12,400 10,320 22,720

 

 

From: http://www.nps.gov/archive/anti/casualty.htm

 

Bloodiest single day of fighting in US history if memory serves. I agree with your point HHS. Of course we could also google the First Battle of the Somme in WW I and get these figures from fighting beginning July until November 18th:

 

Only on 18 November, as winter set in, did the battle grind to a halt. Bapaume had not been captured. Only 6 miles of ground had been taken. The final casualties were: British 415,000, French 195,000, Germans perhaps 600,000.

 

From: http://www.johndclare.net/wwi2.htm

 

I've always believed that the Civil War was the damging event to the American military psyche where technology was greater than tactics but to the world, WW I is the defining holocaust of military destruction.

The War in Iraq, IMO is starting to look at me like Vietnam. No offense to any veterans of either wars, we should get out of there.

I had thought of some options for Iraq and here is one of them:

Ask the UN to divide Iraq into three countries. One for the Kurds, One for the Sunis, and if the Shi'ites want a seperate country, give them one (unless they want to be part of Iran)

I know Bush has basically killed us financially,morally, but he has done some good things.

The War in Iraq, IMO is starting to look at me like Vietnam. No offense to any veterans of either wars, we should get out of there.

I had thought of some options for Iraq and here is one of them:

Ask the UN to divide Iraq into three countries. One for the Kurds, One for the Sunis, and if the Shi'ites want a seperate country, give them one (unless they want to be part of Iran)

I know Bush has basically killed us financially,morally, but he has done some good things.

 

I don't see how this could ever work. "Shiastan" would become Iran, all the oil would be in "Kurdistan," and "Sunnistan" would be hung out to dry. No way they buy into that and it is just begging for a bigger war there than we have now. We have to get them to buy into the government they have now. We have waged a very successful ground war, but we have waged a very poor ideological war.