It isn't lost!

Why don't you just go join the terrorists you inhuman piece of garbage!  You're already in bed with them. The only difference between you and them is they are on the front lines of what you are too much of a coward to join in on.

 

I have yet to read one word from Bahu that wasn't praise for the terrorists and insults for the U.S. As goes your benefit of the doubt, so goes your heart.

Bahu's heart is with the terrorists. Why do you complain that I simply point out that fact?

First, your title may be true, but your article does not follow it.  Second, you again show your bias with your perjoratives that you bandy about without understanding their true meaning, just using them as epithets as most anti-bush people are prone to do.

IN the first criticism, the WAR was not lost.  And indeed so far nothing has been lost.  The War was won.  The peace has yet to be.  ONe can assume a defeatest attitude, and given the rhetoric coming from the left and their toadies in the MSM, one can excuse you for such an attitude, but the truth is the game is still afoot.

Second, while writing a screed against Bush, one is always free to use derogatory nicknames, it lends nothing to the discussion or debate, and basically shuts it down.  For once you have decided to argue emotionally, and not rationaly, you not only lose credibility, but any pretense at a discussion or debate.

The choice is yours to make as this is your blog. 

I think if the assholes can't stop blowing up their own people they deserve whatever fate may bring them.

"So wait, I throw this backpack....big boom....I come back hero, many virgins"

"No, you are big boom"

"OK, so I run in there....big boom....I come back hero, many virgins"

"umm, sure, whatever, go big boom hero, see you when you get back, many virgins"

Family guy, I really couldn't have put it better, damn suicidal fools

The Col has got is right more often then now in his replies.

"To end both the sectarian violence and deny the foreign terrorists a place to operate in Iraq would require many more troops then 500,000 and the loss of American and Iraqis would be massive."

I agree, at this point it would be much more costly in terms of money and troops on the ground, troops the UN should be providing to this cause if any foreign troops at all be provided to maintaining stability in Iraq. Since we don't have many more then 500,000, but the Iraqi's have many more then 500,000 able bodied men and women it will become their task as it should have long ago.

"In order to put this neoconservative agends into action a justification was created using the Weapons of Mass Destruction as the foil to launch an aggressive international campaign against Iraq."

Inaccurate. Here's why, you can't just pull WMD out of your ass, you have to try to acquire them by acquiring the materials for making them. Even if the intelligence suggesting so was fake, and/or inaccurate, a few decisions on bad intelligence have been made before, the honesty in the statement that you make decisions based on that intelligence is key and correct.

Saddam Hussien and Iraq started this war with the invasion of Kuwait, and after being repulsed, i.e. losing the war, and having his army largely destroyed or captured, he continued to attack aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones north and south in Iraq, he did this all throughout the 90's, meanwhile being non-compliant with resolution after resolution at the UN.

The UN finally rather then enforce, they gave up. Because they chose not to deal with situation we did. Not only is it unacceptable for a country to invade another country over a border dispute, i.e. you don't see the United States, invading Mexico, or acceptable for Iraq to continue to attack American aircraft after the armistice of Gulf War #1, they also started the Iraq-Iran war which lasted almost a decade, as well as used chemical weapons on the Kurds in the north, not foreigners but Saddam's own fellow Iraqi's.

To say that Saddam would not have been capable of using a nuclear weapon on Isreal or handing it off to a terrorist group to be used on the USA or even proceeding with a covert operation themselves against the United States while we were busy with the War on Terror, would be wrong as well. The decision to go to war was correct, a falted one, because it was based on bad intel, but the intel was the best available in the CIA, and other organizations, not just ours but other nations as well, including the UK. Yes it turns out after an occupation of 3 years that there would appear to be no WMD in country, and that it therefore was most likely not there to begin with, it doesn't excuse Iraq from their history of non-compliance UN and with maintaining the safe and peaceful world, existing with your neighbors that the rest of the world is expected to maintain as well.

"military leadership completely misread the signals from the Arab streets."

False. The military won the war, if we've lost anything we've lost the post-war which is more a civillian planning failure then military. The only thing the military could have done differently was more extensive planning into the future, and individual job duty training i.e. prison/guard training, but you can't do that without knowing what they were going to be doing. Better operational readiness in terms of which units are available overall would have helped with the long term nature of this conflict and post-conflict.

"policy of encouraging the Shiaas against the Sunnis"

Nobody has been encouraging violence at all except the war lords and militia leaders, engagement yes, coordination yes, but Shiaas vs Sunnis no, False.

"Sectarian violence has already reached epidemic propotions." Subjective and unprovable. It's bad but by what measure, pre-war Iraq? How do you know it's bad, nobody was on the ground before the war measuring the insurgency growing aganst Saddam. All you see now is insurgency against us and kidnappings and plots executed by irregular troops, basically thugs in gangs, well we see that in the USA too. Thugs in gangs.

"The Iraqi constitution which is said to be based on power sharing between the Kuirds, Shiaas and Sunnis is only helping to perpetuate sectarian divisions. While it may not be fashionable to say so, the fact remains that with all the problems of governance associated with Saddam and the Baathist Party, the fact that it provided a viable ideological carapace for a highly divisive society."

Meaning what exactly?

"The lancet has estimated that nearly 650,00 civilians have died since the Incvasion and a death toll of 200 daily is not shocking any more. The US invasion must be held responsible for this gigantic loss of civilian life."

It's also as fake as the WMD intel, Bush says its inaccurate, Iraqi officials say it's inaccurate, many other sources world-wide do not estimate it to be that high or in the magnitude, of hundreds of thousands of civillians. There is no question that there have been civillian deaths, many more then ever needed to die have, our military is a group of highly-trained soldiers, they are able to kill well but discrminatory, this is the most precisely fought war as well as post-war operation fought from ourside ever.

The terrorists/insurgents can make no claim at that. IED's do not discrminate nor do bullets but bullets can be aimed, and so can bombs but IED's cannot. Bottom line, the American soldier is trainned to harm only those who will harm him with discrmination against harming civillians. We are solely responsible for doing the job of not trying to harm civillians while executing our operations. Our country's medics' in the field, also have treated hundreds of thousands if not millions of wounds and worked hand in hand with doctors in Iraq to keep people alive, people caught in the cross-fire of our own weapons and insurgency vs Iraqi governement forces.

"The death penalty given to Saddam Hussein if carried out will lead to a virtual partioning of Iraq along sectarian lines and the world will have another failed state to provide a safe haven for Islamic terrorism."

In your opinion only. Saddam was found guildty by fair trial and his sentence is death. Score one for justice.

I seriously doubt that the long-term outcome would have been any different with twice the number of troops in Iraq from the gitgo. The only difference would be when & to what extent things would degenerate into sectarian violence, not that they might do so. We now know what we'd didn't know for sure in 2003. We've given the Iraqis a chance to live under a non-totalitarian regime of their own making. They've blown it, not us.