"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people."

"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world."

"The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life." - Bill Clinton 1998

"The Iraq War is a failure." - Bill Clinton 2005

Thank You Bill. I guess it is easier when you're not in office and the war is still going on.

Collin Powell in February of 2001:

"He has not developed any significant capability in respect to weapons of mass destruction, he is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."

Condaleeza Rice in July of 2001:

"We are able to keep arms from him, his military forces have not been rebuilt."

So just as these two changed they're minds regarding Iraq, Clinton can't do the same?

Words from a President or ex- are one thing military action against a country that posed no threat to the U.S. or it's neighbors is something entirely different.

Well Condy can say what she said, but that also goes against C.I.A, French, Russian, and Brit intelligence. But that is a whole different argument. I was just sticking with William.

Both of you proved how much politicians opportunistically lie. Good job.

This thread has changed my life.

a groundbreaking quote

I hope someone scoured the archives long and hard for that one.

Well in a way it is a ground breaking quote, because everything in Iraq has worked so far, except civilians and American troops are still dying. The troops deaths are what caused William to say that it's a failure, when he himself knew the consequences beforehand.

Yeah, I'm going to have to file that under the "things aren't working" department.

"Things aren't working" department? Now look, the world has grown more pacifist over the centuries, and yes I think that is a good thing. Therefore 2,000 deaths and counting scares the minds of many Americans. I don't like to play the numbers game. The fact is that things inside the country are working, slowly but surely. If you look at the transition from two and a half years ago to now, you can see a big difference in the direction the new Gov't is headed for. This transition doesn't come free, just like other conflicts in the past. The tough part is stablizing the country. When that task is complete, the future generations will see a better day.

The point is I'm not going to make assumptions during the middle of the war. Yes, the war could be a failure, but it could also be one of the greatest things to happen to the world. We just don't know yet. Plenty of people I talk to who oppose Bush are still aware of the different outcomes.

I think one simply needs to look at our motives and actions in the past 50 years to realize that democracy and liberation of these people is the last priority on our list. Sure, it'd be nice not to have so many troops in harms way. But we are NEVER leaving Iraq so long as oil is still available. Once that resource is depleted we will move onto another oil rich country. We invade and install puppet Governments the history of this is quite extensive and available. We invade specific places for specific objectives. Be it Afghanistan and the oil pipeline/heroin supply or be it overthrowing democractically elected leaders because they didn't go along with the mulitnational corporations plan.

Well I don't believe were in this for oil, but that is just my opinion.

Really? Iraq, Afghanistan, Gulf War, Vietnam, Korea, etc., etc. It still seems like humantiy is as bloody as ever.



In an optional war for the US, any deaths should be considered excessive. War should never be something that is encouraged, only used when necessary.



Stabilizing the country is the tough part, and even before this war started, I felt that it could not be done. You have the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds, and these groups have never gotten along. I was forseeing a civil war in the end, regardless of what outside forces did. Signs of that are still there.



IF peace can prevail, I'm all for that. As I said, however, I'm skeptical that this war will beget more war.



I do agree with you here.

No I really do think the world is more pacifist. The creation and advancement of the media has helped shape the view of war. Peoples attitudes towards War is much different today. If America was fighting this war 100 or 200 years ago, the people would feel differently.

I think the Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis can get it together. The increasing violence and the pouring in of insurgents from other countries doesn't help my case. There are plenty of Sunnis who want peace, but you got a handful of them exploding themselves. I think when everything is stable the three groups can work things out diplomatically.

Y'know, I can almost agree with you here. Hopefully people and some of the media are becoming more critical of war after more of us can see mow much of it is hell.



There's still a long ways to go before things get stable. It's sad that a minority can keep things violent, but they can also turn this thing sour very easily.

I think if a lot more American troops die in Iraq, we'll eventually figure out what the hell we're doing over there.

December 20, 1983

Almost as enlightening as this one:



Or this one:

gee--i'm not so good with history being a girl and all, but was there any exchange of deadly weapons with those photos you posted?

Yes. Deadly weapons and huge swafts of territory in Europe.