Isn't it free now? What isn't free about Iraq? They've been liberated from authoritarian rule...what else needs to be done?

I love it how the right wants it both ways. They want to claim success and failure at the same time, so that Bush has political approval but yet we can stay indefinitely anyhow.

Very interesting insight as to where their true motives for staying in Iraq lie, and I'll tell you...it hasn't a thing to do with terrorism.

__________________
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." - Isoroku Yamamoto's quote following the attack on Pearl Harbor

__________________
Stupid Harry Boy

I hope you're right, but I do not think so. Iran, by the way, is a free nation, but it has a very conservative set of laws. At least there last elections were considered fair. Democracy doesn't necessarily ensure that a country become civilized. Hitler, for instance, was elected.

I meant that everything you said after that I disagreed with.

Hmm. I'm not sure what you're referring to that was so objectionable? You disagree with starting a phased pullout now? You disagree with diplomacy? You disagree with my contention that the Iraqis don't trust us? You disagree that the war ultimately will be shown not to have served our interests? I mean, I know I'm a liberal, but it doesn't mean we can't have some common ground, wistah. I promise I won't call you a liberal.

Survey courtesy of Diebold machines ;-)

Remember, your vote counts!!!!

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Don't know *which* Iraqis you can presume to speak for by your first statement, but the ariticle in the London Times says that "Iraqis feel life is better now than under Saddam". That's a good start, really the best possible outcome one could hope for, especially since Iraq has never had anything like a democracy before. Totally new experience for them.

Which brings to fore the issue of lingering violence: with a nation that had been under a super oppressive regime for many decades -- the Baathist Party -- with only one ruler, Saddam, and one favored group, the Sunnis, who are actually a minority in the whole of Iraq, it is little wonder at all that violence would last as long as it has.

The Kurds, the Sunnis, and the Shi'a have long-standing animosities, with centuries of scores to settle. Combine that with further feuding between the many clans in that part of the world, and it's a wonder the violence has not been more. No matter *who* replaced the dictatorship of Saddam, there would be feuds, fights, and violence.

The U.S. simply acted as the catalyst for change, a change for democracy, a chance for all the people who choose to participate, can participate. To jump all over that noble effort now is simply small-minded partisanship.

The Bush administration is simply caught in the middle: damned if they do, and damned if they don't. I am now completely convinced that Bush would have been railed out of town if he had *NOT* gone into Iraq and removed Saddam, if he had *NOT* done all he has to establish a stable form of government in Iraq based upon democratic principles.

This is now, and has always been, all about politics: get rid of Bush. Plain and simple. Especially in the last two years. Some Dems still cannot get over the elections Bush won in '00 and '04, and they will stop at nothing to get rid of Bush. These people could care less about the war, Iraq, people dying, or anything other than getting rid of Geo Bush.


//

While the signs are definitely showing steady improvements all around: Iraqi national security, business, infrastructure, education, participation in government, freedom of speech, and on and on, ... it would be criminally pre-mature to simply pull out before the job is finished.

When Iraq is FIRMLY under the control of a stable and democratically elected government, and security is comparable to other democratic nations, THEN we can start bringing people home.

When Iraq can stand on its own two feet and deal smoothly and effectively with her neighbors all over the world, then the U.S. will have fulfilled her mission. Then and ONLY then.


//

While other polls shows the Iraqis think things are worse than under Saddam.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2954716&page=1

We'll never know the true extent of Saddam's oppression, though there's no question he was an awful man. The problem is that most of the info that's used to judge his regime came from his enemies, including the same people who fabricated lies that the Bush administration was stupid enough to believe.

Yes, so it remains to be seen if Saddam was the lesser of many evils. At least he primarily killed so called political enemies, not random civilians. And, up until 1991, he had done a good job with the Iraqi economy, education, and health services.

Yeah, what's a 100,000 or so lives in the course of promoting change. I suppose if North Korea ever attacks South Korea, they can say they're simply acting as a catalyst of change. And, it's certainly not a noble effort when you destroy a nation and kill so many people. It was never a noble effort. The more noble effort would have been containment coupled with political pressure that would have eventually led to a more peaceful transition in Iraq. After all, Saddam was in his 60s and had grown more vulnerable. How many more Iraqis are you prepared to sacrifice to defend your political agenda?

Now, now, don't get defensive. This issue is about using lies and deceit to wage an unnecessary and costly war.

Gee, I always thought the issue was how to liberate the Iraqi people from millenia of oppression and dictatorship, and to demonstrate to other peoples living under similar oppressive regimes that they, too, could have hope so that men wouldn't have to fear being put feet-first through plastic shredding machines and women wouldn't have to worry about the next round of rape-rooms, beatings, and be-headings, and the children would not have to watch it all.



//