While I don't pretend to know the value of an Iraqi life over that of a westerner as I am reading the endless articles about the war and all the different oppertunities it has given Bush to royally fuck us and make himself look like an ass I can't help but wonder, like many, what the point is?

Why are we still there? There are no longer weapons of mass destruction, if there ever were, liberating the Iraqi people somehow doesn't strike me as our problem but rather the source of their hatred for us, and should there actually still be terrorist cells over there wouldn't it be wise for us to infiltrate discreetly rather then trying to utterly crush the opposition by wasting valuable American lives, resources, and tax dollars?

I am asking the question in all honesty. If someone knows something I've missed point it out. Of course I mean something tangible and not simply because it's the right thing to do. In case we as westerners have forgotten America is not the world police. The only obligation we have is to protect our interest and those of our allies. Everyone else should be left alone.

We're there because by eliminating Saddam we gave Iran a huge christmas present. Only we assumed that whoever would take over Iraq would give them the cold shoulder and kiss our ass.

Nobody in charge took seriously the concern that post invasion Iraq would be ruled by none other than various hordes of angry violent people, which it currently is. This was gift number 2 to Iran and Syria, and Al-Qaida as well. They run on anti-american disorder, and are taking advantage of the situation just like everyone (except those in power, who had intended to have invaded them by now - seriously) expected.

So, in short, we're still in Iraq because the plan to invade Iran and possibly Syria got knocked off track, and if we leave they essentially win. Of course, they're sorta winning anyways right now. As Thomas Jefferson said, we have the wolf by the ears.

I dunno, jw. That explanation smacks of neo-cons still being influential and dictating policy. I think it has gotten personal. Well, stayed personal. I don't think Bush was ever a neo-con. I think he meant it during his campaign when he said he didn't believe in nation building. But he did hate Saddam Hussein and neo-cons served his purpose in helping him eliminate the guy who humiliated his Dad, tried to assassinate him and ultimately led to Dad's election defeat in 1992.

Thus we are still in Iraq for the same sorts of reasons: to avoid looking like a "wimp", to avoid admitting a huge mistake and doggone it just so George can feel like a real man with hopes for historical vindication in the future.

Guys get informed. Not difficult; we have a war we have to win. No retreat no surrender -you like that don't you? Anyway, stop making an ass of yourself by attacking the only guy with the bal.. to take the fight to them.

Thanks Galomarine. Very thorough and up-to-date.

Bsharp, I admit I was sort of substituting the effect for the cause there for the sake of explaining the big picture. You're right of course that we are there to keep looking tough. But regardless, I do think that "neocon" policy is still alive and well in the administration in that middle-east policy is still based around the use of military force. The only reason we are whispering to Iran or pursuing sanctions is because we're quagmired in Iraq.

We always need to "look tough." In general, I don't mean that in a pejorative way; its important to act the role of the world leader we are. But for this administration its less about "looking" tough than just plain "being tough" and throwing down on those who oppose us. Whether it was "neocon" or not, there was - and still is - a huge conservative foreign policy movement that looked at the middle east, said "you guys suck, we're tired of your screwing around", so we go in and try to kick as much ass as possible and get them to fall in line.

Ann Coulter still sells books, Bill Kristol still writes for major papers, Guliani is still a frontrunner on the policy of staying "on the offensive"

sigh, yep. Good points all, jw.

galomarine:

Guys get informed. Not difficult; we have a war we have to win. No retreat no surrender -you like that don't you? Anyway, stop making an ass of yourself by attacking the only guy with the bal.. to take the fight to them.

Once again, too busy telling us to 'get informed' to actually inform us, heh. Been watching '300' much?

"Neocons! Prepare for glory!"

Who was it who said that it would take many American lives to topple Saddam and quite frankly Saddam wasn't worth those lives? Was it Cheney?

It doesn't take balls to execute a competent military operation, it takes brains, and that is the real issue here. Invading Iraq was a bad idea, but having a bunch of draft dodgers that are obviously incompetent makes it a disaster.

Try to stay informed about what is going on....just like little george, you look foolish when you talk about things you know nothing about.

It is about the oil, and only about the oil. The US is just a bunch of well meaning suckers who have allowed multinational corporations to convince them to build a state of the art military machine, feed their children to it, and allow it to be pointed anywhere on the planet that there are resources to be stolen.

galomarine:

Guys get informed. Not difficult; we have a war we have to win. No retreat no surrender -you like that don't you? Anyway, stop making an ass of yourself by attacking the only guy with the bal.. to take the fight to them.

Seems you are the one who needs to get informed. Why don't you enlist and go over to Iraq and find out first hand what is going on? You seem to be one of those who don't understand that this administration has created the problems we face in Iraq today, you refuse to admit that AQ was not in Iraq till Bush invited them in, you refuse to admit that Iraq had nothing to do with the attack on our nation, you refuse to admit that we would not be in this mess if this administration had of taken the full fight to those who did attack us, you refuse to admit that this administration has in no way shown that they really want to win this war.

As for having bal.., it doesn’t take bal.. to start a fight you have no intention of getting involved in yourself, but intend to have others do the fighting and dieing in your place, while you set back safe and sound. My definition of such is a COWARD of the worst kind. As for taking the fight to them re-read paragraph one.

Oh my god . . . . the idiocy of what you have written actually hurts my eyeballs to read it. I am dumbfounded that you even know how to use a key board to relay a string of thoughts so utterly devoid of intelligence or wisdom. Dear sweet Jebus . . . . this isn't the president responding to my post is it?

We have a war to win because the only guy with the balls to take the fight to them lacks, as usual, the appropriate brains to realize he is doing so in a way that makes our nation, but especially himself, look both incompetent and entirely ethnocentric.

As for winning and it's necessity what exactly happens if we lose this war? The Iraqi tear themselves apart and a new facist dictator moves in to fill the void and rule with tyranical glee? And what? That's been happening since time immemorial and it was our fault the last go round the Iraqi's had with a sycophantic dictator. There are ways to protect our nations interest and oil supply without sending in millions of troops to militarize a country that is beyond saving with bullets and the mean glares of our marines.

As for no surrender no retreat I'm almost certain those were the famous last words of just about every dictator that has ever been toppled in the history of the world. It dennotes the idea that if we throw every last man woman and resources into a conflict victory will be assured. That is just stupid. We'll wind up winning this supposed war, the benefits of which are still unclear, and have lost everything else in return.

Glomarine you have dog meat for brains and belong someplace where you can legally shoot and terrorize those dirty dark skinned heathens with a large gun. HUAH!

See post below for response to this mindless drooling drivel . . . how'd this guy learn to use something as complex as a computer?