Comments on: The Politics Of The Iraq War

Four Years After The Invasion, Almost Everything Is Different In Washington

[random_radar]

"We have never been a conquering, imperial people. We've never needed to be, because our strength is in commerce and culture.
Posted by montraville at 11:34 AM : Mar 19, 2007"

I beg to differ with you. I wish what you say were true, and it should be. But America has become an Imperial power in the last century. We style ourself as the world's policeman, but we have become the world's biggest bully trying to force other nations to do what is in our interests. No one respects us anymore because we use violence to get our way--like the two year olds we are.

[gunnerv1]

I guess I'm an Idiot. (But you will be proved wrong in the long run) These Colors Never Run (unless your a liberal).

[montraville]

"Wars are never winnable. Everyone loses. Yeh you may replace a dictator as in Germany but once that's done, get out "

-Even people who disagree with this will hopefully agree that America doesn't fight wars for simple "victory". When America goes to war, it's to solve a problem, or right a wrong. We have never been a conquering, imperial people. We've never needed to be, because our strength is in commerce and culture.

[tejasdemo]

Anybody who still believes that George Bush is anything but a loudmouth, born again, fruitcake is an idiot.

[tomar0317]

Wars are never winnable. Everyone loses. Yeh you may replace a dictator as in Germany but once that's done, get out. The Germans have successfully rebuilt their country as will Iraq. How it is built and with what type government should not be our responsibility. We helped the Iraquis get started in the right direction, it's their responsibility to continue in that direction or change course as they may. Too many people are casualties in wars, not just the militaries. It's over. It's time for our troops to come home. We're not being unpatriotic as are leaders claim. We're extremely disappointed in our leaders performance. Last Novembers election was a statement by the constituencies. Our leaders, and I use that term loosely, just don't listen!

[huskerarmy]

The United States would have prevailed in Viet-Nam if China and the Soviet Union han not been supplying North Viet-nam.
Gunnerv, But since we didn't prevail in Viet Nam, why didn't the entire world fall like dominos and why aren't we now in the death grip of communism like the right promised we would be?

[huskerarmy]

"So, who are we to believe......the Iraqis or CBS???"
Infidel, Talking about having your cake... Let's not forget that those same Iraqi's who feel they are better off still want us to leave. The fact that they feel they are better off now doesn't give us a pass to stay ad infinitum.

[Razzl]

The Founders did not conceive of a President as untouchable dictator in military matters. It was their belief that the Congress would be the leading body of the tripartite government, representing most closely the will of the people.

Legal experts who make claims about the imperial rights of presidents do so only from the perspective of recent history where presidents have geen able to grab such powers out of politics, but politics must change if we are to avoid dictatorship at some point in the future. We cannot continue to have presidents who can misuse their powers as "Commander-in-chief" and not be reigned in before the damage is done. This started with Kennedy and has be a continuous problem with half the presidents we've had since Vietnam.

I notice these legal experts are also unwilling to acknowledge that the Nuremburg Tribunals, the Geneva Conventions, the United Nations Charter, and the World Court all create legally binding limits on the use of military force which must at some point be honored as our government has signed on to them voluntarily. President Bush and his administration are guilty of war crimes (according to Geneva Conventions), crimes against humanity (under Nuremburg principals) and crimes against peace a(under UN charter) which are all actionable and should be pursued. we need to stop listening to one-sided versions of international law in their defense.

[us_infidel]

"MOST Iraqis believe life is better for them now than it was under Saddam Hussein, according to a British opinion poll published today.

The survey of more than 5,000 Iraqis found the majority optimistic despite their suffering in sectarian violence since the American-led invasion four years ago this week.

One in four Iraqis has had a family member murdered, says the poll by Opinion Research Business. In Baghdad, the capital, one in four has had a relative kidnapped and one in three said members of their family had fled abroad. But when asked whether they preferred life under Saddam, the dictator who was executed last December, or under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, most replied that things were better for them today. Only 27% think there is a civil war in Iraq, compared with 61% who do not, according to the survey carried out last month."

Yet, CBS reports: "CBS News correspondent Allen Pizzey reports few Iraqis feel there is anything to be thankful for"

So, who are we to believe......the Iraqis or CBS???

[karlimhof]

The Soviet Union would have prevailed in Afghanistan if the United States had quit suppling Osama.
Posted by Gunnerv1


Ahmed Shah Massoud was the man who defeated the Soviets - not OBL - who was his cowardly assassin together with the Taliban.

Besides the Soviets were completely drained financially and physically after 9 years of fighting a myriad of insurgents, Massoud included - like in Iraq.