ShareThisBy DAN K. THOMASSON
Ever wonder what the state of the world would be if Saddam Hussein still ruled Iraq with an iron fist? A few late-night comedians have braved potential patriotic wrath by suggesting perhaps he should be brought back, a shuddering thought given his propensity for mass graves.
Now for the first time a prominent U.S. senator has publicly stated just such an opinion _ that the United States, if not Iraq, would be better off if Saddam Hussein had not been toppled from power. It is a position privately held by many but expressed by very few, at least not in those exact words. In reality, however, that is exactly what those in opposition to the war are really saying.
West Virginia Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV made his views clear as the Senate released a heretofore classified document that reported, among other things, that the CIA had repudiated claims that there were ties between Saddam's government and al-Qaeda, one of the key justifications for the Bush administration's Iraq policy. In fact, the report quotes CIA testimony that Saddam regarded al-Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, as his enemy and tried in vain to find him. Rockefeller serves as ranking minority member on the Senate Intelligence Committee, which declassified the report.
The veteran Democratic senator's statement was stunning even in the politically charged atmosphere of the coming congressional elections because it reveals the growing depth of unease among leading Democrats and Republicans about the current situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. Rockefeller voted for the Iraq invasion and like others has been careful not to leave the impression that he does not support American troops.
But using words like "manipulation" and "contained," Rockefeller said there was no evidence that Saddam had connections with the international terrorist movement, one of the White House's arguments for a preemptive strike on Iraq. When asked on television whether he now believed that Saddam should have been left in power, the veteran Democrat said that is exactly what he meant, that Saddam considered the terrorists a threat to his own government and that the Iraqi dictator was sufficiently contained as to be no real danger to the United States. Said Rockefeller, "He wasn't going to attack us."
In contrast, the Intelligence committee's Republican chairman, Pat Roberts, headed home to Kansas grumbling about nothing really new in the report, just bits and pieces already known to the public. He is correct. But the document is another log on the growing fire of discontent about the war and its drain on national assets, most specifically the human kind. It merely prompts more Americans to ask why this course was necessary if Saddam was not connected to terrorists nor had any of the weapons of mass destruction he was alleged to have been readying for use against his neighbors or the United States.
The impact of the report was intensified by the fact the committee is controlled by Republicans, only one of whom dissented. On the other hand several GOP members disavowed another report released at the same time criticizing the administration's reliance on intelligence supplied by Saddam's political enemies outside Iraq, namely the Iraqi National Congress, which had its own interests, leading up the invasion. Roberts issued a dissenting statement challenging the conclusions in that report.
It has become dramatically less clear where the Iraq invasion falls in the war on terrorism. Here are a few questions we may need to ask ourselves. Has this exercise actually raised more potential terrorists than it has eliminated? Has the terrorist movement gained stature in the susceptible culture of the Middle East by our obvious inability to bring stability to Iraq? Do moderate Muslims now regard this war as an attack on their religion generally? Has the fact that 140,000 U.S. troops are bogged down in what might now be a civil war damaged U.S. efforts to deal with resurgent Taliban forces in Afghanistan, which certainly do have ties to terrorism? Has the preoccupation with Iraq hindered our efforts to capture Osama bin Laden?
Finally, we should consider whether we at home are any safer because of this conflict which has cost so many American lives and so much money? Or would we, at least, be better off with a despotic killer who was really no threat to us still running that nation, leaving us free to deal with real terrorism? It is a moral dilemma around which debate is only going to intensify.
Left Saddam alone?
Well, what about the factory that was discovered, devoted to the production of the bomber vests to blow up the innocent in Israel? There are those in our country that don't care about Israel, but the fact of the matter is Israel is our ally, and Iraq was supporting those terrorist.
leave saddam alone
At no one time has saddam supported terrorists.As matter of fact he pursued them ruthlessly and thats the reason why those who support terror dont care any bit of his present predicament.Only americans would believe the so called arguments supporting the iraq war which i am predicting will be long ,costly and unwinable.(just ask the the russians of their experience in Afganistan in the 80's,walked out of it with their tails btw their legs).it will happen to americans too.
You idiots all of you
You idiots all of you believing the Bush “theory†on Iraq. If weapons of mass destruction are a key note for invading countries, along with a dictator and mass graves then why did we not go after North Korea first? Saddam was never trying to test long range missiles that could hit the United States coast. Now this Mad Man in Korea has said he owns WMD’s and threatens the US on a regular schedule. He has the capability to hit the US coast, and being an owner of Mass Graves is an understatement for the Tyrant. BUT…….wait a second North Korea doesn’t own massive amounts of oil fields, and North Korea did not try and kill someone’s “Daddyâ€.
Wake the hell up America, we are being hood winked here. As long as we believe the rhetoric and fight each other the truth will never be out.
you ansered your own dumb questions
You just answered your own dumb questions. Americans might be ok with blind patrotism. Its sad so mamy americans died in iraq, but you brought that on yourselves, the world is more interested in the hundreds of thousands of INNOCENT lives lost thanks to the mighty US. Actually, the world has known all this from the beginning, this is not rocket science. As a Canadian, I have lost even more respect for America as has the entire world since the Iraq Invasion. America attacked an entire religion, way to go. And of course politicians are starting to backtrack on their support of the Iraq war, all that American arrogance and bluster has gotten you in a World of trouble. Now your president wants to re-write the rules of the Geneva convention? Has not america caused enough Horror's for now? Bush talks about abour homeland security when you cant even secure your own borders, laughable, simply laughable. America needs to stay home out of world politics and events and ask themselves what in hell they were trying to do invading a country on lies and bullshit. You cannot and will not ever weasel out of this one because you have started a thousand year war. The World wants to thank the Bush administration. Myself and millions of people around the world are so angry about this entire debacle that we no longer have a lot of sympathy for 9/11 or your fallen solidiers. Any goodwill or solidarity with the Americans has pretty much been squandered for all time. Hopefully America will go home so the rest of the world can step in and attempt to right this situation becasue you all just get in the way with your own brand ideological crap, nevermind the terrorists. It's become increasingly difficult to see just who the bad guy is don't you think? The only bright side to any of this is that perhaps this whole affair has humbled the US and its failed foreign policies enough to make you do some serious soulsearching. George Bush is not only a tremendous failure in the US, but is seen as a tremendous failure worldwide. Its hard not to go on a 20 page rant about the US invasion of Iraq becasue myself like the rest of the entire world is angry beyond beleif at the Americans over this, but I am safe in saying, I'm only one of hundreds of millions of people worldwide and also in the states that has no more respect left. Does America really care? Nope, not at all. And thew world no longer cares about you.
Canadian?
Are you a Canadian?...Don't they write English?...Why not use it correctly? The only thing worse than an American is a Canadian. We in the rest of the world only think of Canada has a wannabe America, trying to distant itself, with its "We are so much better than the US, blah blah". Canadians talk a tough game, but that's easy when they have the powerful US on their southern border. Why not use your email addy next time? Nothing worse than Canadians and Americans and also the Brits.
Reply to the mighty Canadians
You are so right we as Americans are so arrogant. But lets see. After becoming a country and cleaning up most of our BS we had to free half the world. Its so sad that the only way to attack us is through sneek attacks. We are not like France in WWII and get trampled by a regime. If it wasnt for us they would be speaking German. Americans fight no matter the cause. Most of the countries in the world run by dictators have a community of weak men. In America we will fight till the end. Has anyone came on our soil and tried to take it? NO!! Where is Canada anyway??? You know the only reason you guys arent speaking Chineese is because America is standing here. Mexico and Canada should be our 51 and 52 state. Sure we have our social problems but for the most part we are and will be the stongest people that ever lived. It hurts knowing that doesnt it? Poor baby. I feel sorry for your country if you all think like that.
Come again?
As an American, I have lost quite a bit of respect for this particular Canadian, and his/her apparent inability to grasp reality and leave behind his/her fantasy world in which every person in any given country should be judged by the actions of a government headed by its fictitious president, despite the fact that nearly half of the voting population did their level best to get him out of office. Blame individuals, but do not generalize - all that's done for you is make you come off as a raving, imbecilic fool.
You want to talk about "crap"? Very well: Let's bring one particular comment of yours into focus: "...we no longer have a lot of sympathy for 9/11 or your fallen soldiers."
What are you: five? Even more objectionable than your butchering of the English language is your absolute and utter callousness in regards to the lives of HUMAN BEINGS, be they American, Israeli, Canadian, or what have you. In fact, I believe it says much more about you that you could say such terrible things about people who have died or been killed through incomprehensible acts of cruelty without even batting an eye than it does about the country from which any of those people you detest originated.
I am absolutely disgusted that this comment is even allowed to remain here. The only thing you have proven is your own moral debasement, as very little you have said pertains to the issue at hand, and is rather an opprobrious and ignorant rant on your views toward Americans like myself, who don't support the current administration - never have, never will - and don't believe the rubbish we're spoon-fed by this corrupt and dishonest government and its corporate and media dogs.
I pity Canada. It deserves better than to be represented by you.
Do not be suprised.
"...we no longer have a lot of sympathy for 9/11 or your fallen soldiers."
I think what he said possibly was correct. Just after 9/11, most of the population in the world had a lot of sympathy for America. When we started the war in Afghan, the whole world supported USA. However after the Iraq war, after so many Iraq people were killed in this illegal war, every body in the world except the people in USA seems to have forgot the pain caused by 9/11 because we have killed much more people in Iraq than the died number in 9/11.
What we had done in Iraq was what Bin Laten wised when he started 9/11.
He knew that he could not cause much damage to USA by himself and a few thousands of his followers.
He wanted to start a war between USA and the whole Muslim world.
President Bush was so stupid. He just played into Bin Laten's hands.
Now USA is almost fighting with the whole Muslim world.
Bin Laten must have been very happy to watch what has happened in Iraq and enjoy the death of Iraq people and American soiders.
Do not be suprised.
"...we no longer have a lot of sympathy for 9/11 or your fallen soldiers."
I think what he said possibly was correct. Just after 9/11, most of the population in the world had a lot of sympathy for America. When we started the war in Afghan, the whole world supported USA. However after the Iraq war, after so many Iraq people were killed in this illegal war, every body in the world except the people in USA seems to have forgot the pain caused by 9/11 because we have killed much more people in Iraq than the died number in 9/11.
What we had done in Iraq was what Bin Laten wised when he started 9/11.
He knew that he could not cause much damage to USA by himself and a few thousands of his followers.
He wanted to start a war between USA and the whole Muslim world.
President Bush was so stupid. He just played into Bin Laten's hands.
Now USA is almost fighting with the whole Muslim world.
Bin Laten must have been very happy to watch what has happened in Iraq and enjoy the death of Iraq people and American soiders.
I understand you but
I understand you but you put "Americans" in a nice neat bundle. When in fact there is no such thing. We are people just like you. Yes we have an evil president but I did not vote for him. Less the 30% support him and even less agree with him. There is evidence his party rigged his election. If nothing else he is certainly very good at deception of everyone. I protested the invasion along with other citizens before it happened. The world is populated with people not "Americans" or "Canadians". I am also angry but lets not take it out on each other.
Vest Factory??
An alleged factory is no reason to invade and destablize an entire region. The entire middle east wants to wipe Isreal off the map. Isreal is more than capable of fighting its own battles. Fact is there is no excuse whatsoever for the Iraq invasion. That was the strangest bit of justifictaion I have heard so far.
Screw Israel
I agree with the arabs israel must be destroyed and rebuilt by the arabs who are the true owners of the land
US did find wmd's in IRAQ
US military did find over 500 old chemical warheads that Saddam was supposed to have disposed of according to the 1991 treaty he signed to end the first gulf war. He violated his treaty terms on a regular basis and often made threats to attack the US for local political favor. In hindsight this war was probably a case of Saddam bluffing and the US calling his bluff by overreacting by invading. Saddam should have been smart enough to understand the days of the US looking the other way when threatened ended with 9/11. We ignored the threat from terrorism for over 20 years until the shock of 9/11 forced us to act. Those who want peace at any cost forget that the middle east sees appeasement as weakness and acknowledgment of our defeat. Don't think that another power in the middle east will not use WMD's on us. They threaten to on a regular basis and would do so even if we left the middle east and did not support Isreal.
Reply to Did US find WMD?
I think Americans are politically stupid and their President (and his team)is morally stupid but very shrewd, evil politicians. The comments that I read about supporting war in Iraq proves that.
Reply to Did US find WMD?
I think Americans are politically stupid and their President (and his team)is morally stupid but very shrewd, evil politicians. The comments that I read about supporting war in Iraq proves that.
Left Saddam Alone
John H,
I am extremely unhappy as a US citizen that our country is an ally of such a slimy regime as Israel.
Love Carlos
Saddam alone?
If Saddam was left alone,
1. We would have been much richer.
2. We would have been much safer.
3. Our families (Wifes children and parents) that lost Men of War would have been more supported and happy.
4. Gas would have been cheaper.
5. Iraq would have been a richer place too.
6. We wouldnt have caused to repeat the mass graves that once happened for a better cause than now. (It was self defence earlier but now it is because of sectarian voilence that we introduced)
7. The world would have been better off concentrating on terrorism rather than the personal grudge of two presidents.(Bush and Saddam)
8. Saddam knows how to control Iraq better than Bush or the present Iraqi Govt.
Saddam alone?
I completely agree with this remark.
If Saddam was left alone,
Leave Sadam Alone?
One of the most problematic evaluations of the Iraq War is whether or not the US would have benefitted from Sadam remaining in power. As a ruthless dictator, he kept the different factions in Iraq in line through murder, torture and political supression. That benefitted the US because it helped contain Iran and the Shiite Mullahs that hate anything to do with the West. Unfortunately, Sadam was also the greatest single threatin the Middle East having used WMD's on his own people and having invaded Kuwait; actions he took because he thought he could get away with it. He simply lived in his world based on what he thought things should be, not necessarily what they were. Hitler was exactly the same way. And the Bath party was founded on the principles of Fascism; even idealizing Hitler and Nazism. So the US had a choice: deal with "little Hitler" now and hope that democrasy could take root in Iraq and thereby destablize Iran, or leave Sadam in power to counterbalance Iran.
For years the US was hated and criticized for its foreign policy in Latin America where in the late 1800's and early 1900's it toppled regimes that were not favorable to US business interests. Then in the mid to late 20th Century, the US was hated and criticized because it supported dictators that were perceived to be in the US interests. We learned from our experience in Panama that dealing with murderous dictators could come back to bite us severely. And it is out of that experience, I believe, that the US decided to gamble on democrasy being able to counterbalance the Mullahs rather than another dictator whose own aims were to seize control of vital economic interests so as to enhance his own power to the ultimate goal of unifying the Arab nations with himself as the controlling power. And a part of that would have been the threat of WMD and providing them to terrorists so as to keep the US and Europe from interferring with his goals.
If democrasy succeeds in Iraq, the US will have embarked on a new political course that seeks to use freedom of thought and expression as its weapon of containment rather than the suppression of people by a local dictator believed to be friendly to our country. If democrasy fails in Iraq, we will have lost thousands of American lives and billions of dollars in the experiment. Its a tough choice, but I think the President made the right one because success would likely change how the US approaches foreign policy for next 100 years.
Experiment or War Crime?
You are a typical stupid American. Up to now, you are still think that President Bush made a right decision. Any body could think that he possibly made a right decision 3 year ago. It was OK at that time because nothing seemed to be clear. Now it is very clear that USA started a wrong war, USA created a fighting ground for the followers of Bin Laten in Iraq where they could kill American soilders easily, and USA could not handle a broken Iraq and Iraq people are in civil war.
How could you simply call it an experiment. It is war crime.
To call the deaths of
To call the deaths of thousands of American service men/women and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis an experiment where the chance of success is doomed from the very beginning is simply outrageous and arrogant. Or is it the American way since we are the only super power left in the world and we can do what we want?
SADDAM
DOESN'T ANYONE REMEMBER THAT WE SUPPORTED SADDAM IN THE IRAN-IRAQ WAR? SADDAM KILLS CIVILIANS, HE'S A VILLAN. WE KILL CIVILIANS, WE'RE THE SAVIORS. TALK ABOUT HYPOCRITICAL BULLSHIT
thats kinda dumb
yes we killled civillians but not in an all out genocide over religous discrepencies
thats kinda dumb
yes we killled civillians but not in an all out genocide over religous discrepencies
You people do know that
You people do know that before the US went to war with Iraq, we did give them time to comply to be fair. Knowing Saddam and his sneaky self, he had time to move all his weapons elsewhere in other countries surrounding Iraq. He can do something like that overnight using trucks, and even airplanes since they do have an airport. Why overnight? Because you can't be seen! You know what, go to that website (it isn't mine, but still a good site), and read that guy's essays. You people might learn something.
Stupid!
Do not be stupid. I do not think that Saddam moved WMD to other countries overnight just before the invasion by US. If he had any WMD at that time, he would have used it in the war.
He was stupid to have destroyed all WMD he had at that time.
President Bush was stupid to have believed that he did not do it.
Both of them were very stupid.
The US military has many
The US military has many incredible tools up in the sky called satelites. I'm sure we kept a very close eye on the whole Iraqi country during that time just to make sure he didn't transport WMD to any other country.
You have got to be kiiding me - right?
Apologists like yourself make me sick. We had Saddam contained, we flew spy planes continously over Iraq. We had Saddam in a box, plain and simple. Do some reading your twit and not just the right wing nut cases that want a continous state of war. You have got to be kidding me that you cannot be seen in the dark. We have the technology to do so. The only reason we are in Iraq is so our simpleton president listened to the neo-cons and "they wanted to kill his daddy". Oh, and one other reason war = corporate profits.
Now YOU are kidding
Now YOU are kidding everyone, right? "We had him contained". Yes, just like Europe contained Germany after WW1!
How long did you think sanctions could have lasted when you had so-called allies like France, Russia and Germany on one side working hard behind the scenes to end the sanctions in order to resume business with Saddam?
On the other side, you had human-rights groups denouncing the sanctions for causing the deaths of up to 1000 Iraqis a week, mostly children under the age of five and the elderly. They died not because the UN miscalculated how much food or medicine an average Iraqi needed, but because Saddam and his goons were looting that money for their personal use. His sons drove Feraris and lived in golden palaces while ordinary Iraqis starved. Think about this when complaining about the civilian casualties of the war.
Remember how in 1998 Madeline Albright was booed by a university audience for insisting sanctions on Iraq must remain in place? These same clowns are probably the ones critising Bush the most today for taking Saddam out. Sorry, but they can't have it both ways.
Anyway, please explain how 'moral' it would have been to continue this lethal sanctions if Hans Blix had been allowed to complete his inspection for Iraq's WMD in early 2003 and gave Iraq a clean bill of health? The US would have been seen as the evil one responsible for 1000 dead Iraqi kids a week and Saddam comes out smelling like roses. So, the prospect for long term sanctions were as good as dead.
Now, what do you think would have happened after sanctions are lifted? It would have been open season for WMD production. With the available expertise and experience (and friends like France and Russia) and no UN inspectors snooping around, it would have taken no more than 3 year to develop bio and chemical weapons and no more than 10 years to go nuclear, with at least material for a dirty bomb.
And what could the UN do then? Absolutely nothing practical, except passing more resolutions, just like we see with Iran. Thus, it means jack-shit if Iraq had no WMDs on invasion day.
So, should we have waited until he has fully re-armed before trying to disarm him? How smart.
People say Saddam promised never to build WMDs again. This is the same guy who promised his two sons-in-law (who had defected to Jordan in 1995 with previously undisclosed info about secret bio warfare weapons) that all will be forgiven and that he will not harm them if they returned home. They stupidly believed him.
Well, technically Saddam kept his word. He instead got the fathers of the two men to kill their sons if the rest of their families wanted to live. Nice trust-worthy chap, this Saddam. If he could do that his own daughters' husbands, what hope with anyone else. Still, fools are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on his WMD promises. Go figure.
Likewise, it does not mean a damn thing if he had no connections with al-Qaeda on invasion day either. The Lebanon civil war in the 1970s and 80s showed just how alliances can be formed with even former foes, often with just a couple of phone calls or meetings. The Communist and Nationalist factions in China had been killing each other for years. When Japan invaded, they immediately joined forces right until Japan was defeated in WW2 before taking on each other again.
So, what would have been so difficult for these two sides (Saddam and al-Qaeda) to form an alliance 5 or 10 years down the road? Both are Muslim, both dislike the Governments of the neighbouring countries and both intensely hate the US.
Again, should we have waited until this alliance was formed? We can all hope, but 'hope' is not a strategy.
The argument about Bush and oil is plain hogwash. If Bush wanted Iraqi oil, he could just as easily have struck a peace deal with Saddam rather than invading Iraq. If the West could resume ties with Col Gaddafi, despite being enemies for more than 30 years and despite him admitting Libya's role in the Lockerbie bombing, why not a deal with Saddam? Because Col Gaddafi came clean with his WMDs, Saddam did not...end of argument.
When Ukraine and South Africa decided to rid their WMDs, they invited scientific experts from around the world to witness the dismantling and destruction of these weapons. There was full documentation and independent external verification.
Saddam couldn't produce one iota of evidence or credible witnesses with what he had done with his known stockpile of WMDs. The world was simply expected to take his word for it that he's clean. Sorry, but this was rightly unacceptable.
When dealing with convenional weapons, one can afford to under-estimate a potential enemy's strength, capabilities and intentions. With WMD, there is absolutely no such luxury.
Thus, I would rather we played safe and assumed that Saddam had WMDs and links with al-Qaeda and then found out he didn't, than to assume that he had neither of these and find out the hard way a few years down the road that he actually had them.
You know what was really scary? That the West badly under-estimated Libya's WMD programs. That's potentially far more deadly than over-estimating Iraq's. Here's an old engineering tip: "If you have to err, always err on the side of caution".
The burden of proof was squarely on Saddam. That was the terms of the ceasefire of the Gulf War 1 and the 17 binding UN resolutions. Gulf War 2 is essentially a resumption of Gulf War 1. Those who argue that the war was illegal should read the terms of ceasefire for Gulf War 1 first.
In the first days of the Iraq invasion, I remember reading about how some lawyers were planning to take the US and UK to the International Court of Justice over the 'illegal' invasion. I'm still breathlessly waiting for that case.
So to the original question. What if we had left Saddam in place? Answer: We would have had to fight him eventually, and it would have been more on his terms. Those who are asking this question should study WW2 in detail and see how it was won.
The biggest mistake the US made was to not finish him off at Gulf War I. The 'logic' of stopping at Iraq's border is a sensible as stopping at Germany's borders in 1945 and hoping Hitler would reform.
The argument that the Iraq war has caused the US to lose focus and stretch resources too thin works both way. The Jihadists too are forced to re-distribute their forces and fight on two main fronts. I'm sure they would have prefered to fight in Afghanistan alone (where there are better places to hide in the mountains) than the plains of Iraq.
If Iraq wasn't invaded, do you think Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his merry band of international Jihadists would have stayed home and watched CNN? No, they would have packed their Qurans and AK-47s and taken their war to Afganistan. The daily battles and suicide bombing that you see in Baghdad would have been occurring instead in Kabul.
Again, either way, there is no escape. Either you face them in Kabul, Baghdad or in your own backyard. Welcome to WW3.
Finally, the claims that the Iraq invasion is creating more Jihadists is also hollow. There were no shortage of Jihadists prior to even 9/11. But considering the rate Jihadists are being killed in Iraq, only the most hard-core would be happy to sign up today. The prospect of also having to deal with Shiite militias isn't exactly a happy thought either.
And make no mistake, Jihadists are being killed by the bucketload in both Iraq and Afghanistan, as mush as the press loathes to admit it.
Of course, when Jihadists are alive, the press likes to refer to them as insurgents, rebels, resistance fighters, etc. When they are killed, they are called civilians. Your Al-Jazeera / Al-Jezebel and other Jihadist-friendly press are not the only culprits here; too many Western papers are guilty of doing the same and rooting for the enemy.
The US military has to be doing something right here. Every one dead Jihadist means one less Jihadist to cause problems elsewhere in the world. In the end, it is a numbers game. How do you think WW 2 was won?
On the other hand, if the US leaves Iraq prematurely, this would be seen as nothing less than a victory (the same way Osama always refers to the US' hasty retreat from Somalia in 1993). Imagine how inspiring THIS would be for any fence-sitting, wanna-be Jihadist dreamer?
In the 1980s, people used to say, "If only the Russians left Afghanistan, all the fighting would stop". Guess what, more Afghans died after the Russians left than when they were there. And who ended up taking over? The Taliban. Would you like to see another Taliban-type regime take over Iraq?
The US could leave Vietnam with no worries about Uncle Ho's and his VCs following after it. There's no such luck with Jihadists by simply walking out of Iraq. Whoever is left in charge must be able to take on the Jihadists on their own first before any notions of widrawal can be entertained.
I come from Malaysia, which had a communist insurgency that lasted 40 years begining from 1948. If Britain had packed its bags and left Malaysia in 31 Aug 1957 after granting it full independence, there was no way in hell Malaysia could have survived as a democracy.
Instead, Britain, together with Commonwealth troops from Australia, New Zeland, etc stayed on and fought the terrorists for many years. The price wasn't cheap. Almost 3600 British troops were killed; this is equivalent to 1 soldier a day everyday for 10 years. Not to demean these gallant troops, but comparatively, Britain's losses in Afghanistan and Iraq is very light.
Some people may call Bush a simpleton and naive, but at least he recognises the threat and has the balls to deal with it. Surely it isn't rocket science to figure out by now exactly who out there is happy to slit your throats simply for being 'infidels'.
If people like me make you sick, I will bring a barf bag next time.
You can care Israel. But you
You can care Israel. But you should care America first if you are an American. You cannot waste American money and life on the business of Israel's.
Any body in this world could become our allys as long as they want to become our friends.
If Israel really is our ally, it should not have fooled our president about the WMD in Iraq and misled USA into this Iraq war.
Israel has played USA as a tool, as a fool, not as an ally.
Israel seems to be a super America.
The interest of Israel seems to be above the interest of USA.
How the hell is it?