Adolph was equally honest in Mein Kampf. Honesty is not all it's cracked up to be.

Yep...its all our fault. Me and John Powers take the blame!

I knew from the beginning that OBL would never ever align with Saddam or visa versa.
I knew from published information that no one in Iraq was connected to our WTC attacks.
Commonsense told me that a high profile attack on Iraq as not the best way to get Saddam.

Yep, its my fault that we are in the current mess!

And OK rushes right in and proves the point. Hilarious.

ok:

No, you guys don't deserve any credit for Saddam's removal.

OK has a very strange idea of what constitutes a "mess."

We took down a major regional power in a matter of hours, like swatting a fly, really. The didactic effect on the whole, wide world has been profound.

Calling GWII "bloody" is true Orwellian newspeak.
Small numbers of casulties from bandit activities do not make this operation bloody. Normandy, Sharpsburg, Iwo Jima were bloody.

Let's get real about this controversy. See now how the Democrats are starting to waffle on GWII, trying to have it both ways. No one is saying that we should not have taken down Iraq, only that "Bush lied." It is like saying "James Knox Polk lied, people died--but we're still not giving the West back to Mexico."

You know, it's amazing how folks who never got all that excited about Osama and Saddam separately (even long after we knew how evil they were) suddenly become apoplectic when they are mentioned in the same sentence. It's almost like these people are afraid of something.....

for Lou's benefit:

Having US GI's as daily targets... thats a mess!

Terrorists increasing and rallying around Iraqi fanatics that didn't previously exist... thats a mess!

Trying to splice together groups of people that have historic, well documented basic hatred for each other and using GI's as the force to glue them together...thats a mess!

Depending upon ill-prepared people and even a convicted felon now in key positions to somehow bring together Iraq into some undefined level of stability that will somehow restore US integrity and somehow allow for dignified withdrawal..... thats a mess!

OK:

Soldiers exist to be targets of evil.

The more that gather in one place, the easier the Islamicists are to defeat.

Yes, we broke the Iraq where they were artificially bound together by a tyrant.

Who is ever prepared for freedom?

Hey, don't get wrong! Evildoers deserve what they get and if we can't stop terrorists from developing then killing terrorists becomes a last resort; BUT, changing minds BEFORE they become twisted is also a very valid tool for preventing the growth of fanatical groups.

And, a blunt force object of big military is not the way impressible minds are changed.

Our so-called ally Saudi Arabia (SA) has for years been soft on fanatics as we all know. And SA was apparently the breeding ground for OBL and then later in Afghanistan, during the Soviet occupation, OBL's military training was enhanced when he allegedly received covert (US) support to fight the Soviets.

Soo... what goes around, comes around, right? If we train and aid unstable people we eventually reap the end result of their training.

So now we beg the question, what is the nature and end product of our training in the current Iraq mess going to be?

ok:

No regime change, no untwisted minds. Your desire for stability, even if it means people are killed routinely and oppressed eternally, is what bred the terrorists.

The military always changes minds--ask the Japanese, Germans, Poles, etc.

Of course the Saudi regime has to change--it is.

Iraq is going to be just like any other country or three. All we did was hatsen the inevitable and save a few hundred thousand lives.

ok:

A blunt force big object is the ONLY way to change any nation's (or group's) mind.

What are your alternatives? The endless words of Bill Clinton or John Kerry or Kofi Annan? The bribes of Saddam or Chirac? The moral authority of the Dalai Lama?

What could/would have stopped the slaughter in Rwanda? What could/would have stopped the genocide in the Balkans?

What will work in Darfur?

BTW, the stories about OBL receiving US aid in Afghanistan are pretty much myths. To be sure, we funded a lot of stuff through Pakistan. But the Arabs did not much at all - the locals did. OBL got his own $$$ from home, not from us.

Jim -
Maybe you forgot, nothing was done in Rwanda by US;but, something was done in the Balkans by US.

Being a small part of a blunt force object I know from my perspective, it has limited benefits and used alone, is virtually a wasted effort.

And oj your Japan Germany analogies are... well, you know...what they are? Iraq never attacked the US.

ok:

Even people who don't attack us deserve democracy, not our complicity in their genocide.

US was not complacent in the Balkans taking necessary action to correct that problem; but, there, the US didn't get entangled in an unending aftermath as in Iraq.

Failure to admit errors and to correct them is a weakness the USA can not ever afford. Too much is riding on what the US does. We are the 500 lb. gorilla, the bull in the Powell's pottery shop, the elephant in the room!

And in Iraq, due to numerous errors, we are the target, not the corrective force that we could and should be.

That would be the constitutional democracy of Iraq?

Unlikely to happen on Saint George's watch, is it?

What?

Its futile pointing out weaknesses in the facade of holy George to his chorus of worshipers!

All you worshipers at the alter of St. George just continue to blame me and all the other skeptics and non-believers for any mistake Saint George might be even remotely responsible for... it will make life sooo... much easier for you.

AK is just corrupt beyond redemption. He will gladly sacrifice the last Iraqi to make a point about George Bush, but refutes all criticism as mindless Bush-loving.

Yeah... lets blame "AK" too, who ever that is.

Does AK prefer a million dead Iraqis to 2,000 dead Americans also?

One dead US GI dying due to an ill-planned, ill conceived, wasteful, high profile, big budget operation in Iraq is way too much to lose for any amount of Iraqi citizens; but, don't blame St. George blame me or AK whoever that may be!

Sorry, so you prefer a million dead Iraqis to one dead American?

OJ... who's exagerating now? And what are your sources? So far we are being kept in the dark about Iraqi dead, innocent or otherwise.

ok:

Estimates are that Saddam personally killed 600,000 to a million and we know sanctions killed over half a million.

OJ... who's WE?

But, hey no one's agruing that Saddam is a bad guy, as I keep reminding you!

The point of this particular blog is whether Powers has a valid point or not.... that we who would have done a better job of getting rid of Saddam are to blame for the current mess? And yes we, of course, are to blame whenever something St. George does fails!

America, unless you aren't American.

No, you keep saying getting rid of Saddam isn't worth one American life.

No...OJ wrong again. I keep saying we could and should have done it a better way. Its you that keeps twisting what I say!

But, thats your nature, I guess. Can't change the truth, then twist it!

But, go ahead, blame me for all of St. George's mistakes! I know what war means and he never did!

Well, geez, an anonymous guy on the internet says that he was in the military and it could have been done better and George Bush is an old meany. What more could you want?

Ak, I couldn't care less if you were in the service, although I won't believe it without some, what's that called, oh, right -- proof. It buys you no credibility at all. Everything you say about Iraq is wrong -- it's not a mess, it didn't cost a lot and, although any service deaths are regrettable, the deaths so far, for what we accomplished, make this one of the great military victories in history.

Now, if you want to refute any of this, make an argument. Explain how spending less than 1% of GDP annually is really an outrageously high price. Show where, ever in the history of the world, an army travelled half way around the world, invaded, occupied and then allied with a hostile nation of 25 million people and lost fewer than 2000 troops in battle over the course of 2 and a half years. Explain why the chance we've given the Iraqis at establishing a democracy isn't worth while or even try to show why this isn't a democracy.

In fact, you simply switch between two stupid arguments: you would have supported the perfect war and the war wasn't worth one dollar or one life. The practical result of your argument is that you want Saddam in power. Your cowardice in not being willing to admit that is obvious.

OK:

I'm unaware of anything anyone's ever done that couldn't and shouldn't have been done better--the insistence on perfection is merely a way of avoiding action.

But, since you're now saying you do think we should have expended life in getting rid of Saddam and since pre-war estimates were for thousands if not tens of thousands of casualties, how many Americans would be the limit if we'd followed your plan?

Cohen... you never lost a shipmate in combat did you? For your information, war is and always should be the very last option! But, you apparently have no knowledge or experience in that area and neither, as we all know, does St. George.

If a good suggestion is wanted by St. George's worshipers: The CIA special ops worked very well in Afghanistan, where a justified war was started, incidentally!

The Afghan format was ignored as a format for Iraq. Wonder why? Could be the budget wasn't big enough, not enough big contracts to fill or could it be that the CIA stink was on the plan? Who knows? Certainly, you and I will never know as long as the real agenda is covered up by St. George!

But, thats another matter..... getting back to subject, I accept the blame for all of St. George's screw-ups. He was my President when these screw-ups occurred and I should take responsibility for them.
John

If war is the last option then tolerating a holocaust is an earlier option, no? Yours isn't a morally serious view.

Sorry OJ... playing the "higher moral ground" game ain't cutting it either!

You know very well that people in high political offices make decisions based on personal agendas that very often never come to full light. And often it is the rumored reasons that get wide coverage, for example, GOP diehards even blamed FDR for getting US into WWII saying that he provoked Japan's attack...ha, ha.. how ridiculous a notion is that, huh? Ooops... did I step on a nerve there?

Sooo.... lets cut out the crap, OK? Playing the high moral ground game is just that, a silly game.

Agendas both open and closed determined what St. George decided to do about Iraq. All we ALL really hope is that one of the other of those agendas is worthy.

correction:
"...all we ALL really hope is that one or the other of those agendas is worthy..."

ok:

Perhaps you misunderstood--I'm not saying that regime change is just the higher moral ground; I'm saying that your pacifism is immoral.

OJ... my what? Pacifism? Wow, thats a new one for me!

Murtha and I agree on his observation that the importance of the lives of soldiers and sailors is being overlooked and that their lives are being taken for granted by St. George and his worshipers for agendas both hidden and twisted in Iraq.

Why, folks on this very forum have admitted that soldiers are expendable that they are supposed to be targets! Why, OJ and Cohen, in particular, expressed those very sentiments here in their own words as recorded above!

Oh, and by the way, Cohen, what does your 214 say? I know what mine says. ;o)
John

ok:

No, the agenda is right out there in the open--you just don't agree that improving the Middle East is worth any American lives. That's a perfectly rational position.

Here's to improving the Middle East!
Here's to improving anywhere that is troubled!
Here's to improving New Orleans!
Here's to improving America's infrastructure!
Got any more you want to add to this list, please go ahead.

Its easy making the list of whats important to America, the trick is deciding the priority, isn't it?

ok:

No. It's easy enough to do them all if you have the will. You don't.

Priority was the question... not will to do them!

Yes, we can do them all so there is no priority. In fact, they are what we do as Americans.

Still waiting for Cohen to tell me what his 214 says!

OJ... one of these days you will provide a straight answer and what a shock that will be!

But, hey, I am here to get viewpoints sooo... please, twist as much as you like, its great mental exercise for me.

ok:

What's not straight? We're doing the Middle East, New Orleans, Africa, the Pakistan quake, etc., and hardly straining a muscle.

Hey OJ... lets make a bet. Which area will be restored to its former self first - Pakistan quake damaged region or New Orleans and surrounding areas damaged by Katrina/Rita?

My wish is that Katrina/Rita damage is fixed first; but, my bet is that neither area will be fully restored.

Why would you restore a dump to its original condition? All three will be better than they were.

New Orleans folks will be glad to know what you think of the place they live.

ok:

They moved.