U.S. commander: No civil war in Iraq

Blah, blah, blah...If Gore had beaten Bush, we's still be trying to get the UN's permission to respond to 9/11. The planet would be cooler though.

 

It really hurts me to say that but we might've been better off.
We don't have the military or the man power to fight this war on terrorism
all over the globe including Iraq.
The problem I have is how do we know when its over and who will be calling
the shots?
I see this country as weak politically, we could change directions many times
depending on the president, how do you win that kind of war?

The problem that we have here is if things don't improve in Iraq Bush has 2 years left.
If Democrats are elected they might pull a Vietnam before our job is done
and bring everyone home while Iraq falls into chaos or wrong hands and we
are worse off than before we went into Iraq.

I do think it was a good thing to go into Afghanistan.
I do think Iraq was morally right but politically wrong for the US.
Speaking of morally right how can those that support Clinton in Kosovo not
support actions in Iraq, seems like a problem there?

I just don't think the Iraq thing was the smartest thing we've ever done and
my opinion might not have changed if we would've gotten more accomplished.
Hindsight is 20/20 I'll agree on that also.
We certainly haven't ran a smart war after the first phase was completed.
I'm worried about the mindset of the country as well as our political leaders.

 

Gore wasn't elected. You can't blame Bush's failings on him.

 

Failings? What Failings? That's only in the minds of the left. The Dems are doing a great job right now aren't they?

Edit: Damn Sourdough. Pick a side and stick with it.

 

Don't expect me to defend the Democrats. I am no fan of theirs. I understand their political strategy in not presenting alternative ideas, but I loathe it.

 

That may well be true, but the issue is not Gore, but Bush.

 

Did you read all of my post?
Even Superfan should be able to understand this one.
Its not that difficult to understand how the war on terrorism including Iraq
can go up in a puff of smoke in 2 years if other leaders are elected to government.
How weak would the USA look then?
All of what we've tried to do could be changed.

 

Right after 9/11 when Bush stated that this would be a war on international terrorism, I questioned that goal myself. Vietnam showed us that the American public will not support a war with no end in sight, and a war on international terrorism could go on for decades. I felt we should have limited ourselves to those directly responsible for 9/11: Alfghanistan and Al-Quaida. However, Bush made his case to the public and the public accepted it.

I also agree that going into Iraq was a political mistake. However, I also feel that we would have had to go in at some point based on what The Dulfar Report stated. The DR stated that SD had gotten rid of his WMD in order to get the sanctions lifted, and the reason he wanted to get the sanctions lifted was so he could re-establish his stockpile of WMD without UN interference. If true, the moment he began to build up his WMD we would have taken military action. Nonetheless, it is wrong to go to war based on what may happen in the future. Any decision to go to war must be based on present circumstances.

 

So, then, it must follow that you think we'd be morally justified to invade Darfur and Saudi Arabia? Would you support invasions into those countries, which are guilty of worse human rights violations than Iraq was?

Hell, what's going on in Darfur is no different from what Milosevic (sp?) was up to (genocide). But I don't see the Bushes making their case to invade.