Wow, it's hard to know how to respond to a reply such as this.

Are you being sarcastic? I hope to God so.

Anyway, the position you're mocking is that of a strawman. Those who are blaming America and England for what's going on there now can go back to the beginning of Western Imperialism in the Middle East. Unless they're totally ignorant, they aren't saying that America and England caused what's going on there exclusively now. If there are people who think that way, then they're just about as problematical as those who entirely blame the Iraqis for this situation (or bad Iraqis + Al Qaeda, as never before the US invaded, by the way).



Marcus, your theory is very interesting. I find it hard to believe that Republicans in the US, besides those few in the administration now, will keep supporting the war for much longer. And it has everything to do with the elections in 2008.

Look, if you want to hate George Bush, then just say "I hate George Bush." It's simple but honest, and people will respect you for that.

Just quit randomly jabbering about things like "sectarian violence", "conspiracies" and "politics." It doesn't make anyone else seem somehow naughty; it just makes you look sillier than you have to.

You need help constructing an argument.

I'll think for you.

Marcus,
what makes you think that all the ills of the Iraqi's are limited to the west, Surely there must have been, at least, a bitter indifference between sunni and shia that was only unleashed by the freedom the west gave them.
This is obviously a radical religious divide that maybe we could never understand or even see coming.
Has it ever crossed your mind that all we did was uncork the bottle in Iraq and now were desperately trying to put it back in.
How can you blame our leaders for this, if they were unaware then they can hardly be blamed.


NOPE thought of that too and it doesn't work for me.

You guys utterly amaze me at times... Marcus, nice post.

The role of a president or any leader is to make hard decisions. Those decisions are based on the information available at the time, and because the decisions are hard means there are consequences – good and bad. Each decision is based on information that makes it through the filter of advisors, which the leader chooses. It is quite clear now that Bush and Blair chose their advisors…poorly. As we have seen, the Neoconservative’s advisor’s ideological view of the world is seriously flawed. I call the current NeoCon ideology the ‘Rose Colored Glasses’ and ‘I Can’t Hear You’ ideology due to its propensity to see what it wants in spite of the facts and since it is seemingly impervious to contrary opinions. It is extraordinarily unfortunate that learning this lesson has cost so many lives (particularly Iraqi lives) and that it will likely cost the US taxpayers upwards of a trillion dollar before the dust settles.

The US and the West can have less and less influence over the events in Iraq and the trajectory is toward more bloodshed and destruction. As has been said, the genie is out of the bottle. What is ironic is that the end result will likely be the opposite of what Bush and his Neoconservative advisors intended: less ‘prestige’ for the West, hobbling of US credibility, less influence in troubled areas of the world, diminished military strength of the US (and NATO) and the ability to project force when it is critical, and a long-term ideological strengthening of the those Bush wished to destroy.

Very sad.

Bush has said he is the ‘decider’. Quite true. What is also true is that he will not pay the price for his decisions as the decider, except for having the unfolding debacle in Iraq that will be labeled Bush’s War. He has said he doesn’t lose sleep over what is happening. What does that say about him?

Hydro

dude, your country is England, you wouldn't internationally call yourself by your state/city......and yes, you do sound very uppity with your trying to describe geography in England.....believe it or not, England does exist.....just as the USA does exist, the queen of England, not the queen of Yorkshire.....

He was describing the geography of Great Britain in a sarcastic way, making fun of those who use the term Great Britain and England interchangably. England is only a small part of a greater nation comprised of England, Scotland, Whales, and Northern Ireland. So really Great Britain is his country, not England.



You're only looking at it from an American point of veiw. Sure not that many of OUR people may be dying, but many Iraqis are. So when the news says that many are dying in Iraq, it is not a lie or liberal bias, it is the truth (of course I admit that it may be an exaggerated version of the truth)

This is a reminder to everyone to keep this discussion civil. If it descends too far, it will be locked and directed to JoeUser as per the sticky.

That's why I said "lie OR liberal bias" and admitted that the media tends to exaggerate the truth. And I also cannot stand the lack of coverage on the Afghan war. They don't talk about how the Taliban controls most of the country and how Karzai's governmant and NATO troops only hold the capital of Kabul. My guess is they won't talk about the failures in Afghanistan because that was seen as a popular war while Iraq wasn't, so it gets negative coverage from the media. Basically, I agree that the media is extremely populist in its coverage, and I abhor it as much as the next person.



No argument from me on that one.



You are correct on Korea, but the North Vietnamese Communists did take South Vietnam. I suggest you research the Fall of Saigon for detailed information on the fall of the capital of the South and the surrender of the South Vietnamese government. To this day Vietnam is known as the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, and the Communist Party still controls every aspect of the government. So yes, Vietnam was a defeat.

Economic policies - actually, the budget surplus was largely due to the huge tax increase by the Democratic congress that was signed by Bush Sr. Of course, this was one of the main reason Bush Sr wasn't re-elected: Read My Lips...

Another reason for the economic prosperity of the 1990s was the opposing parties in Congress and the White House: the Republican Congress nerfed many of the loopy ideas of the White House and vise versa. Checks and balances ruled. When the Republicans ran the whole show there was no one to tell them they were driving the car off a cliff (certainly Bush was pleased to play navigator – with the map upside down) until, of course, they did. It was amusing to watch the self righteous Republicans self destruct by doing exactly what they ejected the self righteous Democrats for in 1994: incompetence, graft, corruption, and an insufferable sense of entitlement. Iraq did not help them, either.

Iraq is not the product of either the Democrats or the Republicans. It is the product of the Israeli lobby, who is pulling the strings on both parties and all the presidential candidates. Israel considered Iraq a threat to them, but they didn't have the wherewithal to take Iraq out themselves. So instead, they manipulate the U.S. into doing it for them. That's where this whole "WMD" and "Iraq is harboring Al Qaeda" baloney came from.

Now you're talking my language! Bravo to you for being a voice of reason... but now you might be able to be considered a conspiracy nut yourself for voicing that one!