Replies

But why do we need to occupy the country after we wipe it off the map? If a hostile government forms, who cares? We'll just wipe it off the map again.

You are right about our resolve. And the problem was that Bush never made a strong enough case for our involvement in Iraq. Don't get me wrong, I support what we did and believe we had every right to do it. But just as in Vietnam, people don't see the necessity of this war. While it was widely agreed that the war against the Taliban was a war of necessity, in hindsight the war in Iraq appears to have been optional.

But why do we need to occupy the country after we wipe it off the map? If a hostile government forms, who cares? We'll just wipe it off the map again.

Please see Post #28. The individual who wrote that post is far more eloquent than I.

But why do we need to occupy the country after we wipe it off the map? If a hostile government forms, who cares? .

Because we don't want to leave the innocents at the mercy of the islamofascists who would be moving in, slaughtering everyone who collaborated with us, and turning the country into many rivaling WMD factories - ones that came with their own Global Jihad Overnight Express delivery.

This is exactly what the anti America and anti autonomous America crowds are salivating for, that we leave the country in ruins and at the disposal of the terrorists. There is nothing more attractive to the internationalists than to see us leave Iraq defeated, discredited, declawed.

Imagine the cry amongst them then - many of which are in our own congress - to have the United Nations have authority over our President and congress on matters of national defense. Better to finish bringing peace to the 10+% percent of the country still in turmoil, and leave an ally capable of protecting itself and keeping an eye on our enemies in the region in our wake, don't you think?

We'll just wipe it off the map again

Do you honestly believe that statement? I don't. The UNofA wouldn't let us. Venezuela would veto the motion

And the problem was that Bush never made a strong enough case for our involvement in Iraq.

Yes he did, but the press called him a liar and did not openly or in any semblence of accuracy report just what was in all the intelligence & WMD reports.

People really do believe everything they read, and rarely read far past the headline. When the democrats & the press said that the inspectors, UNSCOM, Butler, Duelfer reports, etc, concluded there were NEVER any WMDs in Iraq, people believed them. I can't tell you how many people have called me a liar for posting excerpts of these. Most people have never read any of them, have never looked for them

Don't get me wrong, I support what we did and believe we had every right to do it. But just as in Vietnam, people don't see the necessity of this war. While it was widely agreed that the war against the Taliban was a war of necessity, in hindsight the war in Iraq appears to have been optional

Maybe I'm getting a little cynical, but it's been a very long time since I've seen a statement that started with "Don't get me wrong, I support...." that didn't finish with the reason it was a bad idea.