[starbase]

Hmm. This sounds like it might be an unfortunate comparison. To apply responsibility to us for a centuries old blood, soaked legacy, and compare it to the permanent termination of a regime that had existed for no more than 30 years?

I don't think that comparison is wise or appropriate.

[Terpfen]

The Baathists drew much of their ideology, organization, and methods of "governance" from the Nazis. Given the nature of the terrorist attacks in Iraq, Rumsfeld's analogy is accurate.

[street_lawyer]

"I don't think that comparison is wise or appropriate."

I agree, but the simple fact is that if we can not win in Iraq, we can not win anywhere, at anytime, and we concede victory to terrorism, not only now but in all future attempts to remove brutal and dangerous regimes from the world.

Some of course believe that is not our responsibility, but they may prefer to live under the threat of such violence or be a part of it.

[spanalot]

A better comparison would be our failure to stop the Kremlin in the 20's.

This led to WWII and Korea and VietNam - We could have crushed the Russians in the 20's with few losses but we didn't and it cost us millions in lives and billions in dollars and lost opportunities.

[georgia2006]

the question that should be asked by those advocating a loss in Iraq, because that is what a withdrawl would be, is what then?

Does anyone think we could lose in Iraq and not lose in Afghanistan?

[Nevermore]

"In London, former Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi said on Sunday that Iraq is in a civil war and is nearing the point of no return when the sectarian violence will spill over throughout the Middle East."
Iyad Allawi, former Ba'athist and deposed Iraqi leader, has been saying this since last summer. Duh.