Is the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq a failure or a success?

Question

Do you think Pres Bush will ever know the difference?

Answer 1

That depends upon whose perspective you are considering. From the perspective of the Iraqis, and from the perspective of the majority of the people from both countries, and even from the US soldiers, it is a dismal failure. But, from the perspective of the Military Industrial Complex, it is exactly everything they intended it to be, and they are really raking it in, just like they planned...right from the beginning! *sm*

Answer 2

The invasion became into frequently valuable, whether, the reason for this invasion became into heavily incorrect. no longer in basic terms did we no longer discover those WMDs that the President pronounced, The Pentagon has released comments that no longer in basic terms is it believed that Iraq did no longer have nuclear weapons interior the 1st place, yet that there became into on no account any connection between Osama Bin weighted down and Sadaam Hussein. confident, we did take a violent dictator out of ability, yet different than that we finished no longer something helpful. there became right into a window after 9/11 the place the finished international became into waiting to assist us, waiting to enable us to lean on them, and that they did while we went to Afganistan, yet while we invaded Iraq we in fact broke that window. The Invasion destroyed our photograph as a stress of Freedom and Justice interior the eyes of our allies, and rightfully so. Now we are caught there, slowed down in political debates. Liberals like myself believe it ultimate to decrease out losses and get the hell out of sidestep, yet Conservatives, who've a tendency to adhere to the plan alot longer, even no rely if it is no longer likely properly, disagree. So now our troops are caught in Iraq because of the fact they'd desire to contain a civil warfare between the Sunnis and the Shiites that would replace right into a genocide. remember, this civil warfare does no longer have occurred if we had no longer invaded. This Invasion has additionally prevented us from responding to truly some different international disaster. The genocide in Darfur is proceeding unheaded, and U.N. Peacekeeping Forces have not been deployed because of the fact China is on the U.N. protection committee and refuses to vote 'confident' to militia action because of the fact numerous its oil furnish comes from Sudan. The warfare has additionally plunged us right into a huge debt thats nonetheless starting to be at approximately $5,000 in step with 2nd. this would ward off us from addressing different significant subjects like worldwide Warming and Oil Peaking, (Oil Peaking is the fact that in the time of approximately fifty years, Oil manufacturing will top, and then go down because of the fact there will be not extra oil. this would reason important fights between international great Powers like the U.S., Russia, and China, over who gets the final of the Oil) So this warfare in fact screwed us up the ***.

Answer 3

Well that depends on who you ask. I have alot of friends in the military and they all swear that we are doing good over there, and the people for the most part are happy with what we have done. We are making great progress. But the media will never show that. All they are concerned about is stirring up drama.So if you ask somebody that was actually there, good things are happening, but if you ask a liberal or somebody in the media, you will get a different answer all together. I am also not ignorant to the fact that bad decisions have been made, and things could have been done differently, but we are doing good things over there, and it is a shame that the public for the most part will never know it.

Answer 4

It is a failure for America, but a success for Bush and his gang. They went over there for oil and money for themself not the country, they are oil men.

Answer 5

For me it is always cost versus benefit.

If I want to buy a 2000 Sf home in Kansas, at what point does the price negate the benefit? Lets say I had to bid $50,000,000 to buy this average 2000 Sf home. Although I achieved my goal, was it worth it?

The question is, was invading and occupying Iraq behind cherry picked and fabricated intell worth the cost? I leave the answer to each one of you.

This may help in your decision
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/fallen/page2/

Answer 6

It is divided for some they see nothing but success.

I see destruction broken families broken educational systems failed Government failed utilities and health care systems

But I did not invest in Baghdad Oil And have no money to be gained by Bush's attack.

Answer 7

You didn't define success. From Bush's standpoint, it's a success because, if his strategy continues, we will have a permanent, large military presence in the Middle East, which was his aim before 9/11. There will always be a need for US forces to keep a lid on the boiling pot, even if the level of violence is minimal. By Labor Day, 2008, there will be little sectarian fighting because: (1) Al-Qaeda will be gone; (2) the Shi’ites will have control of most of the Baghdad region; (3) the remaining Sunnis living in communities near Shi’ites will be well protected behind concrete walls. But the other half of our troops will remain indefinitely in Iraq as a peace-keeping force. Sectarian reconciliation won’t happen in this generation or the next. Americans don't understand the truth about Iraq.

The truth about Iraq is that the inhabitants of Iraq have no loyalty to Iraq. They are loyal – in descending order of importance – to their family, clan, tribe, and sect. The vast majority of the people want separate and independent national or religious identities as Kurds in Kurdistan, Shi’ites in Shiastan, and Sunnis in Sunnistan. Multi-cultural Iraq is a misbegotten creation of Winston Churchill, who partitioned the Ottoman Empire after World War I. He drew lines on a map and named an area “Iraq”, but neither he nor Bush could make an “Iraqi” out of Sunni, a Shi’ite, an Arab, or a Kurd. It has always been and must still be held together only by sheer force, whether by Saddam or by Bush.

Churchill could have created three distinct nations to minimize the minority problems. Instead, in one nation, he armed the oil-poor Sunnis to dominate the oil-rich Shi’ites and Kurds. The Sunni minority has ever since suppressed the majority, stolen their oil, and kept them in poverty. The only realistic, permanent solution to the Iraq crisis is the partition of Iraq into three distinct nations. We must rectify Churchill’s blunder.

After deposing Saddam Hussein, Bush armed the Shi’ite majority and the Kurds. The 2004 election created an essentially Shi’ite government with a Shi’ite army and police force. Since then, Shi’ite death squads have been battling successfully against Sunni suicide bombers for control of the Baghdad region. The few Sunnis remaining in Baghdad are living in unsustainable walled ghettoes created and protected by our troops. That is the reason for the decline in casualties. The fiction of an “Iraqi” government that needs help is now a “cover” for a permanent US armed presence in the Middle East.

Iraq is inherently unstable and cannot survive as a nation. Given the enmity among the groups and a Shi’ite / Sunni / Kurd population ratio of approximately 4 / 1 / 1, the Shi’ites will win every national election. For that reason, the Kurds want and deserve total independence. Each Sunni voter is detested and hounded to death by the five other voters and will gain nothing in an Iraqi election. Neither the Kurds nor the Shi’tes have any reason to share oil revenue with the Sunnis. On the contrary, they believe the Sunnis should compensate them for stolen oil. Sunni Arabs also want total independence.

The Shi’ites may oppose the partition because it would mean the end of a bonanza provided by American taxpayers. They have conned us for years with feigned weakness and a need for armaments and training and financial aid while slaughtering Sunnis by the hundreds of thousands. The Shi’ites have enough arms to defend themselves even after selling much of it on the black market. If the Shi’ite factions would stop fighting with each other over their oil, they wouldn’t need our money.

Should we worry that Shiastan would co-operate or even unite with Iran? Such co-operation will occur with or without partition and there is nothing we can do to stop it. Furthermore, nationality will trump religion: Persians and Arabs are not brothers. A complete merger would require one of the two leaders to yield power to the other, which will not happen. Shiastan will be a stable, oil-rich nation.

The way to total and complete partition is obvious. A UN sponsored plebiscite in Kurdistan, (including Kirkuk) would leave only the Baghdad region in contention between Sunnis and Shi’ites. After years of ethnic and religious cleansing, the Sunni population in this area is much reduced. Those Sunnis who are willing to move to a Sunni province and are provided with transportation and financial aid will jump at the opportunity. After sufficient separation, local UN sponsored plebiscites could determine boundaries between the three nations. If the new nations are insecure, they may invite us to maintain small peace-keeping forces at various borders – but only until the dust settles.

Democrats should adopt that strategy instead of their stupid call to “Bring (some of) our troops home (by some day - in some year)”. The House, with a simple majority “Nay” vote should stop funding the war until Bush adopts that strategy. And at his first complaint that lack of funding is harming the troops, the House, with a simple majority vote, should impeach him for dereliction of duty. Our Constitution gives Congress sole authority to start a war and to fund a war. It gives the President no authority to continue a war without funds authorized by the House. It is time for Congress to regain its powers.

Answer 8

"Do you think Pres Bush will ever know the difference?"

Do you? Figure if you did, you'd've included it in your question. Right?

Answer 9

Only time will tell...as for now I look at it as a failure.

Answer 10

There are no winning terms. There never were... because the goal was never 'victory'. Iraq was/is an industrial project, and the only goal was to keep it operating, and to keep the money flowing.

Oh...and the lives lost? Both American and Iraqi?

Overhead.