$120 Oil

[JayBee]

Originally Posted by ChoakMyDee

If it was some country invading and slaughtering Americans would it be ok? As long as it is some other country it is ok...that is the height of arrogance.

Never heard it put quite that way, and being her in America, of course, I hear the other side of the story, the total opposite view. I do tend to agree with your viewpoint, however.

[LivinLOS]

OK I have secular and non secular backwards in my head then..

Make that 3 wars. You are forgetting the Iraq-Iran war. Waht you are saying is true prior to the I/I war. After that war, Iraq was in bad shape, having lost half a million men, and squandered its' huge oil profits on the war.Waging war is an expensive business as we have been reminded of lately in the US. Saddam thought he could make a quick land grab for the Shatt-Al-Arab waterway, give the Iranians a good sound knocking, and then they would sue for peace and cede rights to the waterway. He miscalculated badly. Never expected a long, hard-fought war. He thought it would be easy, and the US never had any influence on his decision to invade Iran. Did he really need **** Cheney to tell him the US would not intervene, when Iran and the US were bitter enemies? It was Saddam's nature to be agrressive and use force, and he wanted that area, which Iraq had been coerced to give up about 10 yrs before. He did not need anyone to prod him. He was by no means an American "proxy."

Well he was given plenty of encouragement, especially during the conflict and to continue the conflict (it was a 8 year war)... Old Rummy was there shaking hands and US weapons were offered after Russia stopped supplying them (82 ??).. The US supported Saddam in the endeavor from about then.. They removed them from the state sponser lists, sent them arms, etc etc etc. The support continued from 82 and was pretty flat out by 84, all through the same period Iraq was identified as using gas on the Iranians and the same period the US issued export licenses for those same banned weapons.

Of course they also wanted to weaken the region so they supplied arms as I mentioned above to the Kurds and essentially worked to a cause that would last for as long a war as possible and to create the stalemate effect. Thats what cost Iraq so much financially. Also Kuwait lent Iraq a lot of money that Iraq appears to have thought would be forgiven debt for reducing Irans influence, when that debt wasnt forgiven, and the Kuwaitis were apparently stealing Iraqi oil via slant drilling then Kuwait invasion was started.

As to a US greenlight on the Kuwait issue as Saddam had previously been one of the good old boys, receiving US aid, etc then he gets the famous "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait" statement I guess he thought he got the all clear.. Seems that time the trap worked well.

Lets not forget that the CIA was in Kuwait co-operating with the Kuwaitis to destabilize Iraq, its not like Kuwait were just sitting there picking flowers and Saddam had a grumpy day and needed a time out. The other truth (thats not said) is that we didnt go there to protect Kuwait, we went there to protect Saudi.. Saudi being the biggest oil fields and with a not much loved in the Arab world set of unelected princes (Democracy ?? where) the administration wasnt going to risk Saddam destabilizing that one.

[So-cal]

Originally Posted by LivinLOS

Hold the phones.. So this was was a pre emptive war against the possible future rulers of Iraq ??? Thats a new twist..

Lets also be clear.. Iraq was completely restricted, it shipped very little oil, it was under very controlling sanctions, it had no nuclear weapons and UN inspectors and everyone else has totally failed to find any WMD's. The few trace CBRN banned weapons that were found (long before the invasion not afterards) were ones the US exported them in the 80's. It was also highly against militant islam, a foe of Al Qeada, and kept the country safe from such elements.

So our reasons for an aggressive war, which has redicalized the country, and allowed it to become a training ground for terror and a recruiting machine for AQ and OBL, while the country was well contained, totally controlled, and presented no threat currently.. Was that sometime in the future they might become a threat ??




OK well as Iraq has more oil that kuwait, and was under sanctions that stopped them shipping thiers as fast as Kuwait.. Then logic would say thier would last longer.



OK so lets have look at this little country you keep holding up as such a nice Pro US friendly place.. That if only Iraq was like..

Kuwait and Iraq were allies during the Iran Iraq war.. They provided Saddam with the port / sea access once Basra was involved in the fighting..

Kuwait doesnt need a crazy dictator ?? No thats because it has an Emir a non elected official who rules the country.. Dictator / Emir.. You can call them what you like.

One of the little mentioned facts is Saddam used as a reason / justification of the Kuwait invasion was that the Emir is hated by the people..






The fact is the Emir has a power base and the following Emir is voted from one of the crown princes.



What little and inconsequential voting there is.. Only started including women in the vote in 2005.. It also bans anyone in the police and army from voting.. The system hinges on naturalized citizens which is a very very small sub section of the community.



So thats your normal middle east country you wish Iraq were like ??? That would be normal like say Syria, Jordan, Iran, Algeria, Libya, Lebanon, even Egypt etc. You have to understand how the meddling policies of the west has screwed over these countries for thier oil, engineered coups, placed in power corrupt ruling elites (like the Kuwaiti Emir) who owe thier power and continued ruling status to the behind the scenes backing, despite the lack of favor of the population. Then we wonder why we are resented by the arabs that live in the ME.

Even the Pro US and pro western governments (supported and held by the west usually) like SA or the UAE. These are not democratic states. Theres this whole perception that the people of Iraq were living in the stone age ruled by a despotic evil dictator.. Now I wouldnt for a minute pretend that Saddam was some nice fluffy man of peace, but its the norm for the arabian world, our allies included. Iraq was (pre sanctions) one of the most advanced, educated, non secular, and western states in the region. Of course now, post sanctions and post 2 wars it is rubble and its leaders look like they may soon be the kind of hard line fundamentalist Islam nut jobs we painted Saddam as, in all truth the country is heading for a secular fundamental islamic future, thanks to the wars.

I am aware of the fact that every muslim nation on earth is homophobic, undemocratic, and generally evil. Kuwait, Iraq or Saudi arabia. These people want to kill us. Muslims cant assimilate with christians in america or buhdists in thailand. Some of them are smarter then others. Saddam Hussain was a big enough menace to give the US enough reason to get him and put thair footprint in the ME in a post 9/11 world. (biggest US military base ever)

Why doesnt anyone blame Osama Binladen about the wars in the ME? He attacked the US, he started it, Bush didnt start it. I have some quotes from some interesting names that differ from your opinion on iraq.

"One way or another, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. Thats or bottom line" -President Clinton, 4 feb 1998 "We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US constitution and laws, to take necessary actions(including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraqs refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle and John Kerry. 9 Oct. 1998

[So-cal]

Originally Posted by JayBee

Never heard it put quite that way, and being her in America, of course, I hear the other side of the story, the total opposite view. I do tend to agree with your viewpoint, however.

I remeber in history class when the world gave Poland to hitler. I also remember the Peral Harbor attack, thats what the US gets for minding its own business.

How could you still support the " not my problem " policy?

[Coolhand]

Originally Posted by So-cal

I am aware of the fact that every muslim nation on earth is homophobic, undemocratic, and generally evil.

hmm, Indonesia, Turkey, Egypt are undemocratic. Sorry I don't think so.

Originally Posted by So-cal

I also remember the Peral Harbor attack, thats what the US gets for minding its own business.

Not bad for a 24 year old, when Pearl Harbour was over 60 years ago, or are you refering to the film?

[Coolhand]

Originally Posted by So-cal

Got into power by force, attacked Iran, invaded Kuwait, launched missiles into isreal, Had started an nuclear bomb program, performed genocide on his own people, burned oil fields that he could not have, paid for suicide bombings in isreal,ripped off the UN oil for food program.....on and on. This is just what i remeber, im sure there is more.

Does this sound like a guy that you would like to be nabours with?

C'mon they don't need all that as an excuse. Remember Bernard Coard? Well they invaded Grenada because Coard was a Marxist, supported by Cuba and had taken over in a coup.

Mind you that was the US first military victory for, well since before the Vietnam War

[JayBee]

Originally Posted by So-cal

I remeber in history class when the world gave Poland to hitler.

Are you sure you weren't absent that day? No one gave Poland to Hitler. On September 1, Hitler declared that on the previous day, the Polish army had begun an invasion of Germany, and announced that Germany, together with its' ally, Czechoslovakia had launched a joint counteroffensive, known in Germany as the "1939 Defensive War."

The Poles had been preparing for war, but only had 70% of their army mobilized for war by the time of the German/Slovak attack, largely, because France had persuaded them to delay mobilization, so as not to provoke the Germans, while negotiations to prevent the conflict were ongoing. When the negotiations broke down in August, Poland went into full mobilization mode, but too late to get the Army full mobilized prior to the German/Slovak attack.

The Poles fought valiantly, but their defensive strategy was poor, as they were too thinly strung out along the long German and Slovak borders. The panzers punched holes in the Polish lines, then hooked back behind Polish flanks and encircled sections of the Polish line and destoyed them. The remaining Polish troops retreated to behind the Vistula and San Rivers, and fought a stalling action, as they prepared to execute their back-up plan, which was to fall back into the Southeastern area of Poland, known as the Romanian Bridgehead. This was a much more defensilble area, and they believed that they could dig in, and hold off the German army for at least several months in that position, until relief forces from their allies, Britain and France, arrived to support them.

But on Sept. 17, 1939 a Soviet army of 800,000 troops invaded Poland from the east, entering the war on the side of Germany and Czechoslovakia . At that point, the Polish government went into exile, and the army attempted a retreat into Romania, which was only partially successful, as they were cut off by the advancing Soviet Army. About 120,000 Polish troops, and most of their Navy, escaped, out of a Polish military force of approx. one million men. 65,000 Polish soldiers and 150,000 Polish civilians died in the invasion, which ended when the last battle was lost to the Soviets on October 6, 1939.

However, the Polish army inflicted heavy casualties on the German army, especially in terms of loss of armored equipment, including approx. 25% of the German air force. Approx. 21,000 Germans died in the invasion.

When you consider that France only held out a week longer than the Germans, when they had a combined Anglo-French force much larger than the Polish army, and far better equipped with more modern equipment and air power than the Polish had, it appears the Polish acquiitted themselves well by comparison to the French and British in the early stages of WWII.

Originally Posted by So-cal

How could you still support the " not my problem " policy?

Prior to the US-UK invasion of Iraq(funny how the Brits blame it all on the US when it was a joint venture), the problem posed to the US, and the rest of the world by Iraq, was, at worst, a very small problem. There really wasn't much of a problem at all, just the annoyance of an egotistical dictator, who didn't much like the way he was being pushed around, and so he took every opportunity to thumb his nose at his antagonists. As we all know, post-war investigations revealed that Iraq WMD programs were all terminated after the 1st Gulf War. The evidence of WMDs put forth as the justification to go to war, later proved to be all trumped-up, and the most damning evidence based on lies and fabrications put forth by exiled Iraqi dissidents, who were associated with the Iraqi National Congress, an exile group.

However, the US really couldn't have realistically had a much better ally in Saddam in the war on terror, because Saddam maintained nearly 100% control over his country, and was not about to let Al Quaeda or Iran get a foothold there. He was way too much of a paranoid control freak to let any outside group or inside rival get any power at all in Iraq. Therefore, he was a real asset to the US in the war on terror, since his country was the only one in the middle east that was nearly free from any terrorist organizations on its' soil(there was one small band of guerillas in a remote area, but he kept them at bay and isolated from the population centers, and they posed no threat to anyone outside of Iraq).

The neocons who controlled Bush had a lot of fantasies about how easy it would be for them to set up a puppet state in Iraq, as a base of power for US operations in the Mideast, to insure the steady flow of oil, and, especially, to defend both the position of the dollar as the oil-trading currency, and to defend US allies in the Persian Gulf(UAE, Dubai, Bahrain, Kuwait, Abu Dhabi, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, etc.)

The neocons were arrogant, and easily played for suckers, by the Iraqi exiles, who called themselves the Iraqi National Congress(IINM). **** Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and George Bush were victims of their own delusions, with regard to the realities of politics in the Middle East. And additionally, Geo. Bush was trying to, in a sense, restore his family honor. Because in the conservative circles in the US, they never really understood why Bush Sr. backed off after the victory in Kuwait. It was popularly accepted as fact that "the road to Baghdad" was wide open after the route of the Republican Guard in Kuwait, and all the US had to do was to march into Baghdad, arrest Saddam, and then the US would have control of Iraq. Which is exactly what the US strategy was in the 2003 war. They demonstrated how easy it was to march into Baghdad and take over. But it never actually occurred to them that people wouldn't just throw up their arms and accept defeat at that point. They anticipated a post-war reconstruction era just like post-war Germany and Japan after WWII. You win the war and then everybody is happy to do what they are told. You help them rebuild, they are grateful and then you have a solid ally. Nice fantasy, George.

They never really seriously considered otherwise, even though they were advised by their generals that there would be a lot of post-war security issues, and a force of 400,000 men would be required to effectively manage the post-war occupation of the country. They were that stupid, and that naive. And that is who we put in charge of our country: naive, stupid, arrogant, deluded, egomaniacs, who thought they knew it all, but, in truth, did not have a firm grasp on the reality of the situation. They were the American Saddams, convinced that military muscle is the way to gain advantages for your country. So confident that they were blind to any possibility of anything short of an easy victory. If they had half a brain, they would have learned something from the Viet Nam experience, but they all really thought that had they been running the show back then, that we would never have lost that war. IDIOTS!!!

The truth is that there was no reason to invade Iraq. And now we are in a big quagmire there, with a real problems and a real dilemma facing us. If we pull out now, it is likely there will be a massive civil war/power struggle, resulting in tremendous loss of life, and devastating the country's already damaged infrastructure, until either a new Sunni strongman emerges, or Iran intervenes on behalf on the Shiites to impose a regime of extremely harsh repression on the Sunnis. If we don't pull out, we could be stuck there for 20 years, realistically, and I don't believe it is realistic to expect the US to bear the costs of such a long occupation. It would require a tremendous amount of manpower and firepower to maintain such a presence, because most of the Iraqis want us out of there, and if we don't get out, there will be periods when the level of violence against US troops and Iraqi collaborators will flare up to intense levels, such as we have yet to see.

And even if we stayed there, 10 or 20 years more, and, in the best case, the situation stabilized to a point where there was not a bloody civil war following our withdrawal, it would still only be a matter of time, until one politician rose to the top of the heap, and then began consolidating his power, eliminating his rivals, and over the course of time, turning Iraq back into a dictatorial regime. Just like it was when we invaded. And that is the best case scenario. Anything else is pure naivety, my friend.

BTW, I like you because you support the US, but you are supporting the wrong politicians there. Bush, Cheney and that crew have been like poison for America. McCain is better than them, but not good enough to undo the harm they have done. Whoever is elected is really starting off from bad position, and will have a tough job. Hopefully, Obama is up to the task. I hope so , because right now, he is our only hope for the future. Check him out.

[ChoakMyDee]

Originally Posted by So-cal

SNIP...Why doesnt anyone blame Osama Binladen about the wars in the ME? He attacked the US, he started it, Bush didnt start it. I have some quotes from some interesting names that differ from your opinion on iraq. SNIP...

The war in Iraq has nothing to do with 911. The 911 terrorists were from Saudi(mostly). They were funded from a guy in Pakistan who was in the Pakistan intelligence service.

Why didn't the US bomb Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? How the hell did Iraq get blamed for Osama's attack?

[LivinLOS]

Originally Posted by ChoakMyDee

The war in Iraq has nothing to do with 911. The 911 terrorists were from Saudi(mostly). They were funded from a guy in Pakistan who was in the Pakistan intelligence service.

Why didn't the US bomb Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? How the hell did Iraq get blamed for Osama's attack?

Its amazing how that little snippet seems to get missed out isnt it..

[LivinLOS]

Originally Posted by JayBee

Prior to the US-UK invasion of Iraq(funny how the Brits blame it all on the US when it was a joint venture),

Its been a long day and I have had a couple of drinks and dont have time to have some fun with some of these points..

I just want to point out that as a Brit I totally agree with this point.. I denounce hypocrisy of any stripe and whan I say 'you' and 'west' and many other accusational terms I am far more saying at the hawks than I am against any one nationality or another. as you so rightly point out there were plenty of culpable people to share the blame within the coalition of the willing.

Will look back in on this tommorow.. Its one of the more interesting ones here right now.

[cotambear]

as true as bush ever gets,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

YouTube - Bushwhacked

[dawsey]

So-cal, are your posts made with the sole purpose of extending the thread?

Because almost every point you make is being rightly shot down.

Did you actually study European history at school ?

I don't know where you are getting your ME facts from, but 99% of your posts are incorrect.

Read JB and LiL contributions and learn! You are so misinformed.

[cotambear]

"These people want to kill us. Muslims cant assimilate with christians in america or buhdists in thailand. Some of them are smarter then others".

Does your experience of los teach you nothing? Do you compare the deranged USA backed cuthroats of the mujahadin that killed teachers in afghanistan for daring to teach girls to read and write, to the muslim thais you meet everyday in los?

"Saddam Hussain was a big enough menace to give the US enough reason to get him and put thair footprint in the ME in a post 9/11 world. (biggest US military base ever)"

Despite the fact that saddam had nothing to do with 911 didnt stop the us lie machine from presenting him as the culprit. The sham was easy to read through if you choose to engage your brain.

Only in in eyes of the us do we live in a `post 911 world`. In reality we live in a post state of israel world, where palestinians (jew and arab alike) live in terror, and the arab masses live in us backed feudal tyranny.

The US attack on dissenter countries has been shamefully supported by others - notably the UK - that doesnt make it right.
There is no doubt that the policy is led from the usa, and shamefully the uk has followed like a tame *****.

[Dupree00]

Originally Posted by cotambear

[ In reality we live in a post state of israel world, where palestinians (jew and arab alike) live in terror, and the arab masses live in us backed feudal tyranny.

So then all of this is Germany's fault.

[ub2yoo]

Originally Posted by cotambear

In reality we live in a post state of israel world, where palestinians (jew and arab alike) live in terror, and the arab masses live in us backed feudal tyranny.

It gives me always a bit of strange (I'm sorry) feeling when I talk to Palestinians. Just yesterday at Dammam's airport I had a chat while having a coffee
and a cigarette. Nice guy, chat about this and that ...then I asked, where do you come from originially.

"Well, I come from Jordan, actually from Palestinia, but now live in Saudi."

I hear this answer a lot, then I think to myself, ouch, homeless people, with no option to return back where they come from.
With some I actually successfully had a bit of a laugh about the "homeless" part on a careful, limited scale.

But, as you know, I don't know too much about the complete story in all detail so I always keep conversations on the very high level.

[LivinLOS]

Originally Posted by JayBee

You won't see scooters/motorcycles make significant inroads into the transportation market in the US. People in Asia grew up on motabikes. People here grew up driving cars. If you had roads crowded with motorcycles here, it would be chaos, because people wouldn't know which way to go. Everyone drives in lanes here, with the odd scooter zipping in and out, but you never have a situation with more the one motorcycle in sight, never see multiple bikes riding abreast in the same lane. That would be very dangerous here, where everyone learns to drive single file. Moreover, the weather just would not permit it for much of the year. You simply cannot drive a motabike in the kind of driving rainstorms we get here in N. CA. in the winter, and riding a bike in places like Michigan on icy winter streets would be suicidal.

Not bringing this up to prove a point.. Just last night there was a segment on CNN titled 'scooter commuter'.. They went out in NYC, met a bunch of scooter users, talked about fuel use, talked about how they used them, and had loads of walk by 'man (women actually) on the street' things saying how cool they were, and how the riders looked / were cool.

However I found it really funny hat the talking heads on CNN, while acknowledging the piece were almost mocking of them.. There was a total snigger snigger attitude and they then even puffed up one of the anchors who apparently drives a big pickup and he was like "I could probably crush one of them and not even notice" LOL.. There was a total exposure of the disconnect between cool and what they were saying.

I did note tho that the NYC Vespa place has made 25% more sales this year !! Thats the investment angle that my mind initially picked up on.. These uber cheap chinese ones may go from nothing sales to big in a couple of years.

I still think a scooter or small easy commuter bike is a viable machine.. Of course perhaps not year round, perhaps not for all trips, and certainly not as an only vehicle.. But I think this will increase as a secondary machine if we keep getting oil shock news.

[Dupree00]

Scooters are very popular in Frisco. Parking is tough here so it's the smart way to go.

[So-cal]

Originally Posted by JayBee

Are you sure you weren't absent that day? No one gave Poland to Hitler. On September 1, Hitler declared that on the previous day, the Polish army had begun an invasion of Germany, and announced that Germany, together with its' ally, Czechoslovakia had launched a joint counteroffensive, known in Germany as the "1939 Defensive War."

The Poles had been preparing for war, but only had 70% of their army mobilized for war by the time of the German/Slovak attack, largely, because France had persuaded them to delay mobilization, so as not to provoke the Germans, while negotiations to prevent the conflict were ongoing. When the negotiations broke down in August, Poland went into full mobilization mode, but too late to get the Army full mobilized prior to the German/Slovak attack.

The Poles fought valiantly, but their defensive strategy was poor, as they were too thinly strung out along the long German and Slovak borders. The panzers punched holes in the Polish lines, then hooked back behind Polish flanks and encircled sections of the Polish line and destoyed them. The remaining Polish troops retreated to behind the Vistula and San Rivers, and fought a stalling action, as they prepared to execute their back-up plan, which was to fall back into the Southeastern area of Poland, known as the Romanian Bridgehead. This was a much more defensilble area, and they believed that they could dig in, and hold off the German army for at least several months in that position, until relief forces from their allies, Britain and France, arrived to support them.

But on Sept. 17, 1939 a Soviet army of 800,000 troops invaded Poland from the east, entering the war on the side of Germany and Czechoslovakia . At that point, the Polish government went into exile, and the army attempted a retreat into Romania, which was only partially successful, as they were cut off by the advancing Soviet Army. About 120,000 Polish troops, and most of their Navy, escaped, out of a Polish military force of approx. one million men. 65,000 Polish soldiers and 150,000 Polish civilians died in the invasion, which ended when the last battle was lost to the Soviets on October 6, 1939.

However, the Polish army inflicted heavy casualties on the German army, especially in terms of loss of armored equipment, including approx. 25% of the German air force. Approx. 21,000 Germans died in the invasion.

When you consider that France only held out a week longer than the Germans, when they had a combined Anglo-French force much larger than the Polish army, and far better equipped with more modern equipment and air power than the Polish had, it appears the Polish acquiitted themselves well by comparison to the French and British in the early stages of WWII.


Prior to the US-UK invasion of Iraq(funny how the Brits blame it all on the US when it was a joint venture), the problem posed to the US, and the rest of the world by Iraq, was, at worst, a very small problem. There really wasn't much of a problem at all, just the annoyance of an egotistical dictator, who didn't much like the way he was being pushed around, and so he took every opportunity to thumb his nose at his antagonists. As we all know, post-war investigations revealed that Iraq WMD programs were all terminated after the 1st Gulf War. The evidence of WMDs put forth as the justification to go to war, later proved to be all trumped-up, and the most damning evidence based on lies and fabrications put forth by exiled Iraqi dissidents, who were associated with the Iraqi National Congress, an exile group.

However, the US really couldn't have realistically had a much better ally in Saddam in the war on terror, because Saddam maintained nearly 100% control over his country, and was not about to let Al Quaeda or Iran get a foothold there. He was way too much of a paranoid control freak to let any outside group or inside rival get any power at all in Iraq. Therefore, he was a real asset to the US in the war on terror, since his country was the only one in the middle east that was nearly free from any terrorist organizations on its' soil(there was one small band of guerillas in a remote area, but he kept them at bay and isolated from the population centers, and they posed no threat to anyone outside of Iraq).

The neocons who controlled Bush had a lot of fantasies about how easy it would be for them to set up a puppet state in Iraq, as a base of power for US operations in the Mideast, to insure the steady flow of oil, and, especially, to defend both the position of the dollar as the oil-trading currency, and to defend US allies in the Persian Gulf(UAE, Dubai, Bahrain, Kuwait, Abu Dhabi, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, etc.)

The neocons were arrogant, and easily played for suckers, by the Iraqi exiles, who called themselves the Iraqi National Congress(IINM). **** Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and George Bush were victims of their own delusions, with regard to the realities of politics in the Middle East. And additionally, Geo. Bush was trying to, in a sense, restore his family honor. Because in the conservative circles in the US, they never really understood why Bush Sr. backed off after the victory in Kuwait. It was popularly accepted as fact that "the road to Baghdad" was wide open after the route of the Republican Guard in Kuwait, and all the US had to do was to march into Baghdad, arrest Saddam, and then the US would have control of Iraq. Which is exactly what the US strategy was in the 2003 war. They demonstrated how easy it was to march into Baghdad and take over. But it never actually occurred to them that people wouldn't just throw up their arms and accept defeat at that point. They anticipated a post-war reconstruction era just like post-war Germany and Japan after WWII. You win the war and then everybody is happy to do what they are told. You help them rebuild, they are grateful and then you have a solid ally. Nice fantasy, George.

They never really seriously considered otherwise, even though they were advised by their generals that there would be a lot of post-war security issues, and a force of 400,000 men would be required to effectively manage the post-war occupation of the country. They were that stupid, and that naive. And that is who we put in charge of our country: naive, stupid, arrogant, deluded, egomaniacs, who thought they knew it all, but, in truth, did not have a firm grasp on the reality of the situation. They were the American Saddams, convinced that military muscle is the way to gain advantages for your country. So confident that they were blind to any possibility of anything short of an easy victory. If they had half a brain, they would have learned something from the Viet Nam experience, but they all really thought that had they been running the show back then, that we would never have lost that war. IDIOTS!!!

The truth is that there was no reason to invade Iraq. And now we are in a big quagmire there, with a real problems and a real dilemma facing us. If we pull out now, it is likely there will be a massive civil war/power struggle, resulting in tremendous loss of life, and devastating the country's already damaged infrastructure, until either a new Sunni strongman emerges, or Iran intervenes on behalf on the Shiites to impose a regime of extremely harsh repression on the Sunnis. If we don't pull out, we could be stuck there for 20 years, realistically, and I don't believe it is realistic to expect the US to bear the costs of such a long occupation. It would require a tremendous amount of manpower and firepower to maintain such a presence, because most of the Iraqis want us out of there, and if we don't get out, there will be periods when the level of violence against US troops and Iraqi collaborators will flare up to intense levels, such as we have yet to see.

And even if we stayed there, 10 or 20 years more, and, in the best case, the situation stabilized to a point where there was not a bloody civil war following our withdrawal, it would still only be a matter of time, until one politician rose to the top of the heap, and then began consolidating his power, eliminating his rivals, and over the course of time, turning Iraq back into a dictatorial regime. Just like it was when we invaded. And that is the best case scenario. Anything else is pure naivety, my friend.

BTW, I like you because you support the US, but you are supporting the wrong politicians there. Bush, C