Has anyone noticed the blame shifting that is going on, and that will go on soon re: Iraq War?

Question

Firstly, we have a president and country who has dismantled all structures of power in areas of military, law enforcement, and the economy, who are now saying that the 'Iraqi's arent stepping up to the plate' to maintain their own security - open your idiot eyes! Everyone who steps up is getting blown up.

Secondly it is clear that the Bush administration and his supporters in the future will allege, post withdrawal/'change of direction' that we would have won if we were given a chance. Bear in mind these fools also have a tendency to believe that the Vietnam War was a great idea, and that we either won or could have won if we 'stayed the course"!!!!!!!!!!. Good luck. This is insanity.

Reality matters.

Your comments would be appreciated.

Another question. Where is the UN? Do they still exist? Do they have any intention whatsoever of stepping in?

What this thing needs, and what it needed from the start was a force that could not be seen as a US invasion. Obvious mistake.

Captain Moe and Lovejuice. You clearly cannot read very well, and I'm not surprised you are naive about the world. Comprehension is important if you are to have reasonable opinion. Work on it.

Sad Wolfpack! Further evidence of a lack of comprehension skills. I am referring to the Iraq economy you fool. Selfish thought and poor comprehension again. Nice work. I must admit I couldve been a little clearer on that, but it is clear enough.

Dave, are you suggesting that a politically motivated reactionary attack on a country that didnt even attack you is good policy? Better to do nothing than to do something really stupid. I think so anyway!

There is no anger, whoever mentioned that... just incredulous disbelief at the stupidity of some people.

Stone K is it about comprehension mate. It is clear enough in the first paragraph that I was talking about Iraq's military and economy. You didnt pick that up either did you wise guy?

All round though, I do appreciate your answer... it raised some great points. I think the problem with comparing japan and germany with Iraq though is that you don't have complications of the region that it is in. Germany is in the middle of europe and japan is essentially isolated.... neither had the kind of regional, religious or cultural issues that are and will be present in and around iraq in the foreseeable future.

Notice I'm not really intending to beat up the US. I think it is great that they are prepared to take action, but just a bit more thought would be good.

My main poke is at the UN. Where were they, and where are they now? What a pointless and weak institution.

In regards to rhetoric, unfortunately it is the stuff your political system runs on... from both sides. To a neutral observer, your right leaning news looks like a western version of Al Jazeera!

Sorry everyone for trying to get you all fired up. I recognise now that I was in error. As an outsider, I failed to consider that the debate re: iraq war in your military and economy includes issues of military spending and how/whether your economy is going badly. Obviously this would affect your reading of the question. Apologies!

oops that last bit was terrible. Lol. You get the picture. Apologies for being a wanker there. I think Stone K or Akkita get the prize. And I'm gonna go have lunch and play some basketball! One of my favourite exports from your country

OK, just one more. I think your impression of the news is relative to your views. For example, I am left leaning, but believe that many left of me are naive about many issues. Stone K, you are obviously, from my perspective, right leaning. Do you think that people right of you are off track? For example I take issue with the traditional conservative views on euthanasia, abortion, but agree that there is room for capital punishment.

I think the overall thing to realise is that there is no left or right. There are a range of issues, and each requires thinking independently of traditional left/rightwing viewpoints.

Mate, you're gonna get best answer. A further question for you. If the conservative side of politics is against welfare.. i'm not sure if this is the rule, but it seems to be so, then a question that arises is who is going to look after the baby? If a country is not going to properly support its poor and ill, then you have to expect negative social consequence.

For example, I have read that the prevalence of single parent families in an area is a great indicator of crime.

I am not just referring to the abortion issue here, but more the general issue of variable living standards within a society.

I would suggest breaking it down this way.

If you had four kids in a family, and one got scraps to eat and couldnt participate in the fun aspects of family life, what sort of behaviour would you expect from that kid?

Further, would it be fair to hold them to the same rules, considering the benefit they receive for doing so is less? Would it surprise you if he/she misbehaves?

My idea is that everyone should be looked after, and then there is no excuse. Are you sick of hearing excuses from criminals? I am too, but some of them are valid now, but would not be in a more socialistic system.

Thats my problem with the left. They seem to think that you can just be nice all the time, and if we did that, our countries would be terrible. And in some ways policies have led to this.

On the other hand, if there are no industrial regulations protecting employees, no welfare, and we all go around distrusting the capacity of other human beings, then society will be terrible. You can see evidence of this.

So conservatives make the opposite mistake. They want to be all gung ho and 'tough', but then have no sympathy or tactics to deal with the glaringly obvious ramifications of unforgiving social policies.

Answer 1

first, I don't think it is a matter of comprehension, because you are kind of all over the place with your question/statement.

second Bush was not responsible for dismantling the military, that was Clinton. he took the money normally directed to maintaining a strong military force and put it in to social programs (for all the good that it did).

And as for the economy, believe it or not the economy today is stronger than during Clinton's administration. In fact if you look back, it started collapsing in the late 90's and only finally fell apart because of 9/11 and has since made an amazing comeback. ask any economist (one that does not work for a liberal newspaper)

As for your Vietnam reference, you should look up the actual history, We were on the verge of winning, even the North Vietnamese have claimed that had the US continued with its efforts the war would have been a victory for us, but when the withdrawal began it gave them time to recover and fight back, making it a fighting withdrawal. No mater how people paint it, the fact is there are abut 3 million Vietnamese who died at the hands of the Communists after we left.

the UN? the UN is irrelevant. they are too bogged down with infighting and corruption to do anything, which is one reason the US bypassed them and went to war with Iraq, Ironically enough to uphold UN sanctions. and no they don't care about what happens in places like Iraq, Somalia or dafur, there is not profit for them there, and even if they wanted to the way the system is set up it would take years to get anything accomplished and it would fall short of the current needs of the situation.

The idea of a force that could not be seen as an invasion is ludicrous, any number of military men who move in to a foreign country in attempt to dislodge an enemy government is by all definitions an invasion force. What needs to be made clear is that the US and allied forces are not an occupying force.

However on that same token if you looked at other countries where America has "occupied" you will find that their post war recovery and placement in the world is dramatically improved.

Germany, Japan, South Korea, and Puerto Rico have all benefited from American "Occupation" or assistance in the post war stages.

Japan literally went from semi modernized nation in ww2 to becoming the one of the most advanced industrial and technological countries in less than 50 years, all while "Occupied" and aided by the US.

And as for your original statement (sorry didn't realize it would take this long to get to the point) If there is blame to be handed out for failure in Iraq, I think it will land on the Democrats simply because they expected instant results and when they did not see it they forced us out.

I don't really think it is a shift of blame however. Bush has a lot of the blame landing on his head as well. but what happens from this point on is the democrats legacy.

ADD ON: Oh you were making reference to Iraq's former military and economy structures... sorry, it was not all that clear.

The problem with maintaining Iraq's original military and police force is the fact they were all Saddam loyalists, its like having the wolves guard the sheep from the other wolves.

the economic structure of Iraq was already in shambles. Saddam had used all the money the country made for his own personal enjoyment and lifestyles, there was no economic structure to use when we arrived.

and unfortunately the whole thing about Iraq stepping up... they are being rushed by the democrats in this country with all their rhetoric about "withdraw now!"

No matter what you build, if you rush the job its not going to be as good as it could be with the proper tools and time. and Iraq is not getting that help with idiotic rhetoric the far left is spewing out in to the world.

ADD ON: You really didn't make it clear friend. I may not be the sharpest knife in the box, but I always excelled in reading and reading comprehension, and by your statements and the tone you used it was pretty clear to me, that you were making reference to Bush and the US alone. not about Iraq.

try adding a few more references for us to follow. it may be clear in your mind, but a lot of people need more information than what you presented.

ADD ON: I agree there is too much rhetoric going on, but if it looks like the media is spreading out a lot of right wing nonsense then the world is more liberal than I suspected... and that scares the crap out of me lol.

Because I can tell you, all we see is liberal biased stuff here at home. and I am not just being biased myself. My grand dad was a reporter and a news paper editor, and he taught me how to look for balance in information and all the information i get really is left leaning.

ADD ON:

Honestly I believe most people are moderate with leanings in one direction or another.

It is unfortunate that the people who get the media coverage tend to be on the extremes of either political view.

I am a life long republican and I have absolutely no problem with gay marriage, and honestly most of my republican and Conservative friends have NO problem with it either. A few of my dearest friends are gay and I work in the hospitality industry (and no not making a stereotype) a lot of my coworkers and guests are gay.

Now if you talk socialism I will gladly fight tooth and nail against it. And I am very much in favor of capitol punishment, and Abortion I think is not necessarily wrong, but it just seems an easy excuse for not taking personal responsibilities.

If people just talked rather than threw around political mud all the time maybe things could get done in a reasonable manner. But I am not holding my breath. too many entrenched political and social views for people to come to a reasonable conclusion.

Answer 2

Lets start with the UN and what they are supposed to be doing..That will be time consuming and I am out of space.....
Resolution 1511 (16 October 2003)
1)mandates the UN to 'strengthen its vital role in Iraq
2)authorises a multinational security force, and urges states to contribute to it and to the reconstruction of Iraq (para 13 & 14). Requests states to contribute financially (para 20), including at a Donors Conference (para 21), by providing required resources (para 22) and by transferring assets of the former regime to the Development Fund for Iraq (para 24)
3)Requests the Secretary General to report on UN operations in Iraq (para 12). Requests the US to report, at least every 6 months, on military matters (para 25). Decides that the Security Council should review the mission of the UN force within a year, and that its mandate will expire once power has been transferred to an Iraqi government (para 15)

Resolution 1723 (28 Nov 2006)
Extends the mandate of the international force in Iraq until the end of 2007, using language essentially identical to that of the previous year's resoultion 1637.
Resolution 1637 (08 Nov 2005) It extends the mandate of the multinational force in Iraq until December 2006, though it includes the proviso that this mandate should be reviewed by the Iraqi government no later than the 15th of June 2006. It also extends current arrangements for the depositing into the Development Fund for Iraq of proceeds from export sales of petroleum, petroleum products, and natural gas until December 2006
Resolution 1619 (11 Aug 2005)
Extends the mandate of UNAMI (the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq) for 12 months. Resolution drafted by the US, and unanimously accepted.

Answer 3

We lose our wars when we don't go all out .
Our mistake is when you go to war, you don't discriminate. You devastate whoever even stands near the enemy. We are playing by the nice guy set of rules and they are not. That is the problem. Look how long Israel's war with Lebenon lasted. They just went in didn't care what the world said and did their job. The only thing these people respect is violence. We show weakness with out media and turncoats.
The very same people made the same big noise when Bush's father didnt go into Bagdad and get Saddam. Now they are yelling just as loud since Bush did what they cried about his dad not doing.
What is the preesident supposed to do? He would have gotten much more criticism if he would have done nothing after 9/11.
We lose our wars when we don't go all out .

Answer 4

The Iraq War was started on false pretenses; there were no WMDs. The people who understood how to wage war, the career military officers, were ignored and fired; Rumsfeld knew better how many troops it would take to hold the country; he also said in a speech in 2003 that he thought the Iraq War would take months, but certainly not years.

GHW Bush created a coaltion and got the world behind the US in Gulf War I. We wound up not paying much of anything for the war, Kuwait was saved, and Saddam was contained. His son, however, through poor diplomacy, wound up creating a coaltion that was, by and large, bought and paid for by the US. Now most of them are gone, our troops are stuck in the middle of a civil war (that might well have been avoided if the generals were heeded in 2003 about necessary troop levels to secure the country), and our nation has an enormous deficit to pass on to our children and grandchildren.

Answer 5

I am all for reality - did you notice the Dow had the largest increase ever yesterday? That housing in the last 6 years has boomed. Unemployment has been at lows for 4 years now. Where was the economy dismantled?
I live in an area that crime has decreased the last 3 years & our law enforcement has grown.
My son is in the military & they are stronger& better trained than ever. In 3 years we have lost 3,300 men, too many but compared to the 58,000 of Vietnam it proves our military is stronger not "dismantled".
What was that about reality? Get real.

Answer 6

You bring up good points.

If we had more planning before toppling the prior Iraqi regime, there would be less chaos in Iraq, and the government structure may have been easier to rebuild.

Instead, we are the occupying army in the middle of a civil war, a religious and ethnic civil war. And, all factions have their extremists.

What are we still doing there?

Mr. Bush: LET OUR PEOPLE GO!

Answer 7

Most of the UN's military is actually from the United States. We're not going to fight our own people.

Answer 8

Are government is corrupt in so many ways we didnt need this war.The only war that was right was the Afghanistan war beacouse it was a retaliation.

Answer 9

I have noticed that the repubs are starting to blame the dems already for the war and they havn't been there for 3 months yet. Yeah, the dems are to blame for everything that the repuds do wrong. You don't think they would blame themselves do you???

Answer 10

many Americans are getting wise to the liberal hate America propaganda