No, it's not, because it's an absolute waste of time.  Freedom and self government require two things

1. the moral and philisophical roots to support it.  Self government requires SELF-GOVERNMENT.  The degree of freedom individuals enjoy is directly related to their ability to be responsible with it.  Freedom is only possible when the individuals will do the right thing on their own accord, without government making the rules for them and enforcing them.  freedom = self rule.  the anarchy and chaos that errupted after Saddam was no longer there to impose order and (some kind of) morality on the iraqis is evidence that they lack the philosophical foundation for American style freedom to work

And a warning to America, the more we loose the ability to govern ourselves without the need for external government (helooooo! New Orleans ring a bell?)  The more freedom we will loose because government will have to step in and provide the restraint for us.

2. The price paid in their own blood.  things that are given are easily despised and discarded.  Things that COST something are respected and protected.  Look at the inner city "public housing projects".  No matter how nice they are when built, they quickly turn to squalor becuase it didn't cost the people anything.  It was free, and so it's worth nothing.  They have to purchase freedom themselves as a nation and culture before it will be worth keeping once we're gone.

The Iraqi people have neither.  They were governed by a dictator, and are currently worthy of no better.  As soon as we leave, whatever is there will collapse, only to be replaced by another dictator.

we are fools and poor students of history if we think otherwise



Now is it worth going over ther to kick ass so they don't mess with us?  Yup.

Quoted: Quoted: A couple things: 1)The war to over-through Saddam was not fought to free the Iraqi people (at least not as a primary purpose); it was done to stabilize the region.  A region that is so volatile it will probably inevitably become the flashpoint for most every major conflict in the next 100 years.  Especially if it is continued to be governed by extremists. I'm not sure what the source for your first sentence is.  The war was originally stated to be fought for another purpose entirely. 2)The war has now evolved into a bonus round.  One that was not necessarily foreseen by war planners and talking heads.  This “bonus round” is an away game on the WOT (War On Terror).  The WOT is typically played in the stadium of the home team, and the home team can really only play defense.  In this situation, we get to directly confront 1000’s and 1000’s of jihadists before they make it to American soil.  These imported insurgents are from a variety of surrounding Arab countries.  They have come to fight the great jihad with America and have come to die.  It’s better we do this in their backyard than the financial communities, shopping malls, and schoolyards of America.  As of this date we have lost approximately 1400 in combat.  I would say that had we stayed home and sat on our hands we would have lost 10 times that on our home soil over the next 20 years.  So from a mathematical standpoint; yes losing one life is better than loosing ten. I think the flaw in this argument is twofold.  Number one, it assumes the number of jihadists is fixed and therefore a certain number of the stock of jihadists is being expended in Iraq.  However, the number of jihadists is not fixed -- there is an effectively endless supply of potential jihadists that the presence of American troops in the region can convert into actual jihadists.  The question is whether the equilibrium of terrorists being killed/taken out of comission vs. those who become terrorists as a result of the American presence in Iraq is the real question.   Second, the terrorist fighters in Iraq capable of infiltrating from Syria and Iran to fight in Iraq are not necessarily capable of coming to the US and taking the fight here.  So if the supply of jihadists increases as a result of the American presence in Iraq, and not all of those jihadists are going into Iraq to fight, then the war in Iraq has destabilized America's security position. (snip)

Regarding #1)  The war is or any political agenda is always "sold" to the public for support.  When dealing with the American public, it is always more effective to sell to them based on their heart strings (emotion) and not a pitch based on analysis and linear reason.  A look at how many Democrats in office is proof of this theory.  It still does not change the reason.

Regarding #2) True, nothing is fixed in the absolute sense.  However, if an individual is willing to  freely and willingly lay their life on the line for the jihad, I would argue that they were 99% of the way there before Americans set foot in Iraq.  The fact of the matter is, we (the US) are not fighting anyone because they are Muslim and we are not fighting to become occupiers.  With that in mind, if a potential jihadist feels otherwise, then they are sheeple and would have converted to hate and want to kill us anyways.


Regarding #2 - second point)  An individual's capability to make it to US soil is not the determining factor of whether they can effectively pursue the cause of the jihad.  As these individuals are killed in the battlefields of Iraq, there is that many less (in their respective countries) to fund raise, to teach new generations, and to preach in the streets, to hate all that is not Muslim.

No war is worth an American life.  It is worth killing the other asshole.

In the 20th century we learned one very valuable lesson and that is the protection of the oceans on our borders mean nothing anymore.  An isolationist policy only results in a war on our own streets.

The same people crying no war under any circumstance will inevitably be the same people crying why didn't you do something before it was too late.

Tj

Quoted: What about the Sudan? There's worse genocide and brutality going on there.

Cool!

Allow me to help you pack!

Eric The(DidYouGetYourTicket?)Hun

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: A couple things: 1)The war to over-through Saddam was not fought to free the Iraqi people (at least not as a primary purpose); it was done to stabilize the region.  A region that is so volatile it will probably inevitably become the flashpoint for most every major conflict in the next 100 years.  Especially if it is continued to be governed by extremists. I'm not sure what the source for your first sentence is.  The war was originally stated to be fought for another purpose entirely. 2)The war has now evolved into a bonus round.  One that was not necessarily foreseen by war planners and talking heads.  This “bonus round” is an away game on the WOT (War On Terror).  The WOT is typically played in the stadium of the home team, and the home team can really only play defense.  In this situation, we get to directly confront 1000’s and 1000’s of jihadists before they make it to American soil.  These imported insurgents are from a variety of surrounding Arab countries.  They have come to fight the great jihad with America and have come to die.  It’s better we do this in their backyard than the financial communities, shopping malls, and schoolyards of America.  As of this date we have lost approximately 1400 in combat.  I would say that had we stayed home and sat on our hands we would have lost 10 times that on our home soil over the next 20 years.  So from a mathematical standpoint; yes losing one life is better than loosing ten. I think the flaw in this argument is twofold.  Number one, it assumes the number of jihadists is fixed and therefore a certain number of the stock of jihadists is being expended in Iraq.  However, the number of jihadists is not fixed -- there is an effectively endless supply of potential jihadists that the presence of American troops in the region can convert into actual jihadists.  The question is whether the equilibrium of terrorists being killed/taken out of comission vs. those who become terrorists as a result of the American presence in Iraq is the real question.   Second, the terrorist fighters in Iraq capable of infiltrating from Syria and Iran to fight in Iraq are not necessarily capable of coming to the US and taking the fight here.  So if the supply of jihadists increases as a result of the American presence in Iraq, and not all of those jihadists are going into Iraq to fight, then the war in Iraq has destabilized America's security position.] (snip) Regarding #1)  The war is or any political agenda is always "sold" to the public for support.  When dealing with the American public, it is always more effective to sell to them based on their heart strings (emotion) and not a pitch based on analysis and linear reason.  A look at how many Democrats in office is proof of this theory.  It still does not change the reason.Your first and second sentence highlight one of the major problems with the political process that led to this war.  The American public and the world stage were misled, intentionally or not, into a cause celebre to justify the war.  Our political leaders have not been held accountable for this.  As an aside, your comment on democrats is just as easily made about republicans.  It's a very biased view to think only a democratic candidate campaigns on emotional issues. Regarding #2) True, nothing is fixed in the absolute sense.  However, if an individual is willing to  freely and willingly lay their life on the line for the jihad, I would argue that they were 99% of the way there before Americans set foot in Iraq.  The fact of the matter is, we (the US) are not fighting anyone because they are Muslim and we are not fighting to become occupiers.  With that in mind, if a potential jihadist feels otherwise, then they are sheeple and would have converted to hate and want to kill us anyways.I agree to a point.  Some of those converted to come fight would have done so anyway.  It's just a question of how many new jihadists are created that otherwise might have been harmless.  Nobody can answer that with any certainty.  However, the American presence in Iraq has generated a tremendous anti-american fervour in the Islamic world, adding measurably to an already acute problem.   Regarding #2 - second point)  An individual's capability to make it to US soil is not the determining factor of whether they can effectively pursue the cause of the jihad.  As these individuals are killed in the battlefields of Iraq, there is that many less (in their respective countries) to fund raise, to teach new generations, and to preach in the streets, to hate all that is not Muslim. I agree with you again, but I think it's a question of degree as to what threat these insurgents posed in the absence of readily available US targets.

The first and second sentence do not specifically highlight issues with the political process, they highlight issues with the incredibly short attention span of the American public.  After 9/11 our perception of the world changed.  Along with the way we view terrorists, and sponsoring nations.  We decided (rightfully so) to go on the offense, and strike down our enemies before they mobilized to strike us.  This is to include outlaw regimes that have vowed to cause the US as much pain as they are capable of.  

To the letter, we went to war with Iraq to as a final consequence of their violations with the UN and WMD.  You cannot rally the American public for a war with speeches about “The evil dictator who violated UN Resolution number 1234, blah, blah, blah”.  No one will pay attention; no one in America will care.  (until of course, disaster hits the US and then we will all sit here whining and finger pointing)  GW did talk very specifically about the reasons we are going to war (i.e.:  911 lead to a different attitude, Iraq terrorist state, UN violations for over 10 years)

In reference to being misled, it is my personal belief any Iraqi WMD went over the border to Iran or Syria during the opening days of mobilization.  But just for the sake of discussion, lets say there were no WMD.  What political leader do you want to hold accountable?  And to what end?  US intel has believed the WMD issues since early in the Clinton administration.  There are hundreds of quotes by the likes of Clinton (his and hers), Kerry, Gore, and the gang all talking about Iraq having WMDs dating back into the mid 1990’s.  So any finger pointing would be a useless exercise in political headhunting.  
The fact of the matter is, whether Iraq had WMD or not, they purposely positioned themselves so the world would think that they did.  They felt this would give them an advantage when dealing with neighboring countries and the world.  His plan did backfire.
As far as Democrats campaigning on emotional issues, it was actually kind of a complement, as it is a very effective tool.  This is really an indictment of the average American, not the politician.  Bill Clinton was a master marketer in this sense.  I wish conservatives could package their ideas in these emotional sound bites like the Democrats can.  But the simple truth is, the solutions offered by Democrats (solutions of subsidizing problems) are more easily packaged like that.  The most famous quote I can think of “ . . . .it’s for the children”, attached to almost any cause can make a great sound bite.
In any event the fact remains, there were only 2 options left on the table prior to the war; one was to talk and the other was to fight.  We had talked for years and years and years with no results, the war is the lesser of two evils.

As for point #2)  We pretty much agree, and simply hope and pursue the best-case scenario.