Clarification/Follow-up by jackreade on 10/24/06 6:59 pm:
Yes, of course.

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 10/24/06 7:14 pm:
Ah CeeBee, since when did you become a pessimist? And when was the last time we carpet bombed Iraq?

Clarification/Follow-up by CeeBee2 on 10/24/06 7:20 pm:
Itsdb, so we aren't killing good Iraqis somehow someway somewhere?

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 10/24/06 7:42 pm:
CeeBee, the vast majority of Iraqis being killed are Muslims being killed by other Muslims.

Clarification/Follow-up by CeeBee2 on 10/24/06 7:51 pm:
And what was the catalyst i.e., impetus, to cause those Muslims to kill other Muslims? (How many good Muslims has the U.S. killed so far?)

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 10/24/06 7:59 pm:
The catalyst? Since we're using pictures...









Madrassas (terrorist U):


And let's not forget this, in the hands of the most intolerant, merciless, religious fanatics:



The war in Iraq was an excuse, not the catalyst.

Clarification/Follow-up by CeeBee2 on 10/24/06 8:39 pm:
Yes, war was definitely an excuse!!

Clarification/Follow-up by jackreade on 10/24/06 11:06 pm:
lol....The radical right are still playing the "blame everyone else" game for all "W"'s failures since 2000; Baghdad Bush's invasion and War of Adventurism on Iraq obviously didn't have anything to do with the current situation in Iraq!!

LOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!

I bet it is Clinton's fault!!!!!!!!


bwah hahah ahahaha

Clarification/Follow-up by jackreade on 10/24/06 11:17 pm:
typo: has should be had.

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 10/25/06 8:00 am:
Which oil cartel is Bush's ? Wish I knew so I could invest in it.

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 10/25/06 11:16 am:
When oil prices were up, the Dems said that it was because of the war in Iraq, and that Bush was deliberately driving up the price of oil in order to get rich. Now that oil prices are down, they blame it on the Iraq war and say that Bush is driving the oil prices down so that he can get cheap oil. Well, which is it? If it is all about the oil, then what is Bush's plan for the oil... to drive prices up, or drive them down?

Frankly, I have shown you through pictures what the war is about. That's not to say that there haven't been mistakes in Iraq. Of course there have. The biggest mistake, in my opinion, was in fighting by the PC rules of war. Wars cannot be fought in a politically correct manner... by nature, war is what happens when politics breaks down and fails, so trying to fight a war with political correctness is simply applying an already failed solution to the problem... it won't solve anything. Wars have to be fought to win at all costs. Yes, at ALL COSTS. Worrying about collateral damage, rights of POWs, world opinion, and multi-lateral options is the biggest mistake we have made in Iraq. Had we not woried about those things, had we simply put into effect a total news blackout and taken care of business, this war would have already been over, and there would have been many fewer casualties. So that was the single biggest mistake. And for that I blame Congress, the Press, Rummy, and to a certain degree, Bush himself.

But just because there have been mistakes, does that mean that we should abandon the fight? That we should just cave in to terrorism? That we should go on as if 9-11 had never happened?

There are 45 murders in the USA every day. If we apply the same standards to the war on crime as we have to the war in Iraq, we're losing the war against criminals. Does that mean we should stop fighting crime? That we should "redeploy" the police only to areas that are low crime in order to protect only those neighborhoods? That our cops should only be reaction forces against crime in bad neighborhoods, but should not be permanently stationed in those neighborhoods? That we should cut and run from the bad neighborhoods? Because that is essentially what you are saying we should do in Iraq. I certainly hope that is not your opinion. The example of New York City under Rudy Giuliani proves that assessment incorrect. Ruddy let the cops do their jobs and crime in NYC's worst neighborhoods fell by huge amounts... and that led to a similar drop in crime throughout the entire nation. Rudy didn't worry about the political correctness of what his cops were doing, and he didn't allow the press or public opinion handcuff the cops from doing their jobs. And because he let them do their jobs without being under constant observation, they cleaned up NY. The same would be true of the troops in Iraq, if we simply let them do their jobs. But the press and the libs in Congress and the various anti-Bush activists won't let that happen.

We're in Iraq for all the right reasons. That has never been the problem. The problem is in not letting the soldiers do their jobs unobstructed.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 10/26/06 12:43 pm:
As everyone here knows , I became critical of some of our post-war actions with the handover of the governing of the occupation from Jay Garner to Viceroy L Paul Bremer and the CPA May 11, 2003 . Garner publicly stated that his preference was to put the Iraqi people in charge as soon as possible and to do it with some form of elections.Which is also what leading cleric Sistani wanted .

Bremer came in and immediately made 2 disasterous decisions.The first being the complete disbanding of the Iraqi Army ,and the 2nd ,an aggressive DeBaathification program which made many civil servants ;who had joined the Baath pary for the purpose of getting a job rather than for their ideological beliefs ,unemployed .The CPA was also responsible for administering the Development Fund for Iraq ,and that was clearly mismanaged .

However ;unlike this conspiracy theory claims ,the privitization of the Iraqi economy was a good thing for the country .Iraq's economy suffered from years of state mismanagement and centrally planned economics which was evident in the deteriorated infrastructure in most of the country .

The CPA was disbanded on June 28, 2004, and a new transitional constitution came into effect.But a valuable year was wasted in the interum .

The other big post-invasion mistake I point to was the decision not to kill and destroy Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army when we had a chance to do so . August 13,2004 the snake and his army was trapped in a cordon around the Imam Ali shrine. But intervention by Sistani ended the seige and al-Sadr was left alive to fight and kill US troops .He has since exceeded al-Sistani in my view in influence among the Shia majority and there is solid evidence that he is a surrogate of Tehran . (it's no coincidence that his militia is called the Mahdi Army and that the goof-ball running Iran is a devoted of the 12th Imam 'the Mahdi' )

So leaving him alive was probably the biggest mistake we've made. The Sunni insurgency was subdued ,and al_Qaeda has become a pariah inside the country .

It is my strong suspicion that under the directions of Tehran that it was Shia under al-Sadr and not Sunni who bombed the Golden Dome mosque ,(sorta their Reichstag moment),to foment this current wave of sectarian violence.

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 10/26/06 2:10 pm:
Haven't the Taliban and poppies taken over Afghanistan now?

not even close to the truth .Your information as I recall came from that Newsweek cover story .But there are counterpoints to most of their claims .

They claim :“Five years after the Afghan invasion, the Taliban are fighting back hard, carving out a sanctuary where they -- and Al Qaeda’s leaders -- can operate freely.”

Afghanistan is undergoing a difficult transition from a state of anarchy in many areas to a country with a democratically elected central government that is reaching out to long ungoverned territories. The article frequently relies on myths, opinions, worst-case scenarios, and a disinclination to mention any positive developments.

The strength and influence of the Taliban has grown in some areas but lets not make like they have a safe haven .The Coalition, NATO/ISAF and Afghan forces are on the offensive and have defeated them whenever they encounter them . The rise in violence is directly attributable to Coalition, NATO and Afghan National Army and Police offensive operations. These operations are designed to set the stage for the continued development and extension of the central government’s reach into areas that have been lawless for decades.Also not all the violence can be attributed to the Taliban and al-Qaeda: some arises from criminality, tribal strife, land disputes, or narco-trafficking.

They claim : “In the countryside over the past year Taliban guerrillas have filled a power vacuum that had been created by the relatively light NATO and U.S. military footprint of some 40,000 soldiers, and by the weakness of Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s administration.”

Qari Mohammed Yousaf Ahmadi, generally viewed as the Taliban’s current chief spokesman, stated publicly on Sept. 15, “The Taliban forces have conducted a tactical retreat.” It is difficult to fill a power vacuum if your forces are retreating. As Gen. Jones has recently stated, much of the recent increased fighting stems from the Afghan central government extending into areas in the south that have been lawless for decades. Much of the fighting reflects a decision by the Taliban to challenge the NATO force in southern Afghanistan. The tactic hasn’t worked. Karzai himself has acknowledged the importance of strengthening and improving Afghanistan’s governmental institutions. A representative government has never before existed in Afghanistan’s long history, and strengthening that government will take time and patience.

They say :“Afghanistan is ‘unfortunately well on its way’ to becoming a ‘narco-state,’ NATO’s supreme commander, Marine Gen. Jim Jones, said before Congress last week.”

It is true he said that but his comments were not as bleak as Newsweek portrays them to be . He went on to say, “Afghanistan should no longer be considered a failed state, but rather a fragile state.” Left out of the Newsweek article was his assessment that this situation can be reversed if the Afghan government, NATO, and the Coalition work aggressively to reduce the cultivation and flow of opium in Afghanistan and provide rural economic development to improve the economic prospects of Afghan farmers;an approach that is being adopted .

Afghanistan is a much better country than before the invasion .It is freer and it's economy is beginning bear the fruit of the freedom.

Afghanistan’s GDP was valued at $2.4 billion in 2001. In 2006, it was valued at $7.3 billion, and that number is projected to rise to $8.8 billion next year.

The government of Afghanistan collected more than $177 million in revenue in 2002–2003, and $300 million in 2004–2005, an increase of 70 percent.

Eighty-five percent of all property deeds in Afghanistan have been restored or reorganized, decreasing land and ownership disputes.

There is now a Central Bank with 32 computerized provincial branches.
The completion of the Kabul-Kandahar highway improved transportation and commerce by dramatically reducing travel times between the two cities.

Thousands of kilometers of roads have been built or improved since the Taliban fell. The U.S. portion of the Kandahar to Herat highway has reduced the travel time between those two major cities from 10 hours to 4.3 hours. The average speed on 70 percent of Afghanistan’s roadways has increased three-fold, from 20 kilometers per hour to 60 kilometers per hour.

There have been more than 28,000 micro-loans given out for agricultural activities.

At least 2.5 million Afghans have benefited from irrigation and road projects linking farms to market. Other agricultural improvements include 210 irrigation structures and 300 kilometers of canals that have been rehabilitated to improve 300,000 hectares of cropland.

At least 2.3 million animals have been vaccinated against disease.

In 2001, only eight percent of Afghans had access to basic health care. Now, 80 percent do.

There are currently more than 5 million students enrolled in schools -- 34 percent are girls.

Afghanistan is one of this administrations great successes by any measure .