“And the killing was much worse under Saddam than it is now.”

Just after writing someting this:

“And regardless, we are there now. Period. Any action we take, will be from that perspective.”

Dugger, people are dying right fucking now by the dozens every day in Baghdad. Are you telling me you have the balls to tell their families to stop their bitching and moaning (and retaliatory killling) because they had it worse under Hussein?

Like I said, Dugger, anytime you want a trip to Baghdad, I’ll spot the ticket.

Exactly why we didn’t storm Baghdad in 1991.

Sorry dipshit that’s not why you’re a moron. You’re a moron because you wrote this:

“a) We’ll look weak
b) Iraq will be in chaos”

You say this is what the argument against leaving Iraq boils down to. I say thsi is yet another example why progressives are clueless on foreign policy.

How about genocide? Blah, blah, blah …

Weak on foreign policy? Really? Critics of the war were right on every count, our invasion of Iraq has been an umitigated disaster that has sparked genocide, an increase in terrorism worldwide, increase instability in the region while emboldening Iran and North Korea.

You can’t sit there and attack the left for being “weak on foreign policy” when the left was entirely correct in its assessment of the invasion’s impact on the region and the world.

The administration that you supported than and now was wrong on every count. Dead wrong. Their foreign policy has weakened our position in the world military, diplomatically, politically and morally.

They’re allowing that position to weak even further because are DOING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to correct course and change their policy. All they’ve done is ramp up the rhetoric of “stay the course.”

Being the good lickspittle that you are, you have repeated it ad naseum whiel attacking liberals for “having no plan.”

It’s been clear to a majority of the American public for overa year now that Bush has no plan for Iraq.

The Dems have a plan: redeploy from Iraq and reapproach our war on terror.

It’s ridiculous to suggest that we shouldn’t look at how we got in this mess as we look for a way of getting out. The people who got us in are still in charge and still hold some sway in the national debate. They all ought to be run out of town on a rail and new leadership brought it. Hopefully we’ll get a good start in that direction in November.

In the meantime, it’s time to listen to people like the new head of the British Army, General Sir Richard Dannatt:

He says with great clarity and honesty that “our presence exacerbates the security problems”. “I think history will show that the planning for what happened after the initial successful war-fighting phase was poor, probably based more on optimism than sound planning.

“History will show that a vacuum was created and into the vacuum malign elements moved. The hope that we might have been able to get out of Iraq in 12, 18, 24 months after the initial start in 2003 has proved fallacious. Now hostile elements have got a hold it has made our life much more difficult in Baghdad and in Basra.

“The original intention was that we put in place a liberal democracy that was an exemplar for the region, was pro-West and might have a beneficial effect on the balance within the Middle East.

“That was the hope. Whether that was a sensible or naïve hope, history will judge. I don’t think we are going to do that. I think we should aim for a lower ambition.”

Sir Richard adds, strongly, that we should “get ourselves out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems”. “We are in a Muslim country and Muslims’ views of foreigners in their country are quite clear. “As a foreigner, you can be welcomed by being invited into a country, but we weren’t invited, certainly by those in Iraq at the time. Let’s face it, the military campaign we fought in 2003 effectively kicked the door in.

“That is a fact. I don’t say that the difficulties we are experiencing around the world are caused by our presence in Iraq, but undoubtedly our presence in Iraq exacerbates them.”

Your guys in the Bush administration had their shot, Dugs, and they fucked it up. Time to leave.

Cite, Dkelsmith? Cause I think you’ve got it backwards. There is civil war there, and we are exacerbating it.

For we know, before we went to Iraq, there was genocide of the Kurds. Use of WMDs (gas) in a horrible, deadly war that dwarfs ‘ours’.

Gas he very probably got from the United States. 50,000 people murdered in a single incident politely ignored by the major powers because Saddam was still our mate at the time.

Not a very good example to bring up, Dugger.

Show me the statistics, Dugger. If you’re so sure the numbers bear you out, why are you hiding them? Did you invent them?

Who knows? Who KNOWS?!?

For “who knows” we should keep 140,000 troops occupying a defeated country? For “who knows” we keep bringing our sons and daughters home maimed or killed? For “who knows” we energize the global jihadist movement?

Perhaps it’s time to try a different course, yes?

Again, against Iran. With Reagan/Bush I’s blessing. And with munitions sold by Rumsfeld/Cheney.

Oops.

And you have no idea what I did or did not dismiss at war’s inception. No clue. AS i have consistently said here, I probably would not have gone in. I say probably becuase I was not privy to everything the Admin and Dems and Repubs who voted for war saw (classified). And regardless, we are there now. Period. Any action we take, will be from that perspective, not a hypothetical we should not have been there. And the killing was much worse under Saddam than it is now. (I’m just not sure its our job to get rid of all the evil people in the world)

Cite?

And where are these ironclad statistics that you’re always yammering on about that prove Saddam killed more Iraqis than the war we’ve unleashed has, Dugger? Are they real or did you invent them?

But our invasion of Iraq has accomplished all those things.

And now you sit there offering defense after defense for the people who brought about everything you claim to be concerned about.

If you want to bluster about consequences, you’re too late to the party, Dugger. Way too fucking late. All you are offering now is more of the same recklessness, more of the same partisanship, more of the same failure.

Oh, Dugger, you’re just priceless. Did you not notice that every potential danger you listed is actually a direct result of our CURRENT policy in Iraq?

“How about genocide?”

The Sunnis and Shiites are currently killing each other dozens at a time.

“How about greatly increased terrorism worldwide.”

Annual worldwide terrorism is up since we invaded Iraq.

“How about much greater instability in the Mideast?”

Tell me again how stable is the Mideast now?

“How about greatly invigorating autocratic dictators worldwide (‘Saddams and Saddam wannabes).”

Ya, because what would happen if Iran and North Korea were emboldened to restart their nuclear programs?

“How about endangering Israel and the small sheikdoms.”

Sheikdoms? Were defending sheikdoms now? What happened to spreading democracy?

In short, Dugger, everything you claim is a reason to stay in a Iraq was presented as a reason not to go in before the invasion and you dismissed it all as liberal appeasement and political correctness. Now its already happened because we went into Iraq in the first place and you attack liberals for not caring enough about these things.

Your idiocy is outmatched only by your craven hypocrisy.