The best part of any of the two party debates happened last night between the only intellectually honest Republican and Huckabee. Ron Paul is to the GOP as Dennis Kucinich is the the DNC. In this exchange, RP made the very smart move to state that we should never be in another undeclared war and that the President had no power to illegally start a war with a country that did not invade us. He obliterated Huckabee whose only defense when it got down to the nitty gritty was "honor" to which RP countered that this is not about saving face or honor at all.

This idea that our honor is at stake is as old as war itself. What Huckabee really said was that we owe the Iraqis something more than we have already provided them. This sounds like an honest mans attempt to break what is wrong but it is not accurate at all. We freed the Iraqis from a dictatorship. We gave them freedom, liberty, a chance to rule themselves and prosper. What did they do with this new freedom? They used it to start killing each other, looting their own country, splitting into factions, destroying their very own infrastructure and nation in the process. Did we cut and run? No, we hung in there for the last four years and what is the current state of Iraq? A goddamn disaster. The fault of this is not ours anymore, its the Iraqis themselves that now carry the burden of using this opportunity to live a peaceful, prosperous life. Our honor has no role in any future decision making with regards to Iraq.

This is what RP and various Democrats have been trying to tell these neocon ideologues. When they say honor is at stake, what they really mean is their own honor, not America's. And what does a pound of honor get you at the end of the day? One shitload of dead or maimed bodies when that is used to justify war. Take a look at Gallipoli if you want to see what honor will do for a soldier. Over the ramparts boys, God Save the Queen!

There is some truth in what you've said, but the fact is that Saddam controlled the factions of Iraq with a death grip in order to have any kind of stability there, and most Iraqis did live a life of far more stability under him (repressed stability though it was) than we are going to provide them.

Your observations are several years late, which makes them pretty useless. Any information about Iraq BD (before dubya) told us that for centuries, Iraq has been one of factions killing off factions. To presume that we were so obviously of sound mind and good intentions that Iraqis should instantly comprehend what being a democracy even meant, was ridiculous from the outset. To presume that simply because our intentions were good (which I never actually pretended to presume, but will allow you to), Iraqis should hale us as heros and just sit down and ask, "What now, oh kind sirs?" was idiotic.

Iraqis did not ever live a life in which democracy could thrive. To have a democracy, is to require being able to be tolerant of those who do not share your beliefs or lifestyle. Too many Middle Eastern factions do not have that basic ability, and certainly the ruling factions in Iran and even Saudi do not. How were we to teach tolerance, when we didn't even recognize the lack of it?

If most of what is happening in Iraq is between Iraqis, why are we threatening Iran for sending factions across their border? Why do we leak the news that nuclear weapons have been moved across state lines? Not to intimidate Iraqis, but Iran.

I have a hard time putting up with people who insist on invading another country that isn't even a threat to anyone, and then get all indignant because that country doesn't come to heel.

I have been against this war from the outset. My post was about what we owe them today as a response to Huckabee's retort last night in the debate. As for not looking back, only a mule with blinders looks straight ahead, the man with the reigns has a bit more responsibility.

The problem with the neocons is that they never ask the Iraqis what type of government they wanted. The neocons felt that their way of Democracy was best for the Iraqi people.

By their actions the Iraqis have made their choice. They want a strong arm dictator with a constitution that is theoracy in nature. They want security rather than a free society.

They are willing to die to get the type of government they want.

That is why the Iraqi Parlament is stalling. The government of Iraq and the people (s) of Iraq want the US out of their country.

The US is an occupator not a liberator. I's sorry, but the truth hurts. All the Bush43 rhetoric in the world won't change the facts in Iraq.

wdp

"RP made the very smart move to state that we should never be in another undeclared war and that the President had no power to illegally start a war with a country that did not invade us."

I'd have to agree with this basic idea. Preemptive wars are no good in my book. Hitting first is hitting first. We arrest our own citizenry for doing this, I don't see how it's a valid way to behave toward another country. It becomes hypocracy and pompous to say only US citizens are allowed these kinds of benefits and then speak about our constitution as a document of human rights.

"We gave them freedom, liberty, a chance to rule themselves and prosper. What did they do with this new freedom? They used it to start killing each other, looting their own country, splitting into factions, destroying their very own infrastructure and nation in the process."

I disagree with parts of this. "Giving freedom" is a slippery slope. We gave a lot more than the chance to rule themselves and I don't think you can say our government gave them freedom nearly as much as we took away Saddam. I know a lot of people think the two are the same, but I don't think they are. We may have done a good thing in getting rid of Saddam, but we also destabilized Iraq at the same and did our own fair share of infrastructure destruction. As for them splitting into factions "after" we "gave them their freedom," you don't seem to understand that these factions existed LONG before the war. This is why we must take responsibility for destabilizing Iraq. Bush's manner (in my opinion) hindered the amount of help we have had in the area, but more to the point, he seems to have neglected the fact that the three main groups in Iraq all hate each other. To me it seems obvious that this would happen; I would expect it in fact, though maybe I had something Bush didn't: simple information about Muslims from my father who lived in North Africa as a Navy Brat.

As for how much effort we should put into Iraq, i don't know, but in my view we will always be at fault for entering into this war in a hap-hazard way. The American citizenry is generally quite complacent and preoccupied and to whatever degree we as individuals allow that to be is still a choice each of us must live with. I'd love to be rid of this war, and I don't know the best course of action, but our nation IS responsible...as responsible as anyone who isn't carefull enough and causes an accident no matter how sincerely good their intentions may have been.

My two cents, anyway.

Take care.