Iraqis still ask if U.S. invasion was worth it

[mkemse]

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Five years after U.S. and British forces swept into Iraq and toppled Saddam Hussein, many Iraqis are asking if the violence and upheaval that turned their lives upside down was worth it.

The human cost is staggering -- anywhere between 90,000 and 1 million Iraqi civilians killed, according to various estimates; nearly 4,000 U.S. soldiers dead; while 4 million Iraqis are displaced.

Keep in Mind That this conflict is now Costing the United States $12billion Dollars a Month, yes billion not Milion and yes per month not per year

What is your opinoin on what the Iraqi's think, has the Human cost and the Finicail cost been worth it, with no apparent end in sight??

[TomOfSweden]

As far as the Iraquis are concerned they're still in minus from the invasion. But it's a bit short-term view to see it in. Democracy takes many years to evolve into something useful. Right now everything sucks ass in Iraq. They have less safety and less protection from the law than they had before. I still support the invasion.

[mkemse]

thanks for your reply and comments

[Ozme52]

Well, as is typical, you only quoted (and emphasized) the parts you like.

Here's the rest of the article. Good and bad. One must decide if the good outweighs the bad... if the historical parallels justify the means. Ask Cuban expatriots and they'd tell you they feel let down because we didn't follow through and oust Castro.

Damned if you do... damned if you don't.

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Five years after U.S. and British forces swept into Iraq and toppled Saddam Hussein, many Iraqis are asking if the violence and upheaval that turned their lives upside down was worth it.

The human cost is staggering -- anywhere between 90,000 and 1 million Iraqi civilians killed, according to various estimates; nearly 4,000 U.S. soldiers dead; while 4 million Iraqis are displaced.

On the bright side, Iraqis are rid of one of the 20th
century's most ruthless dictators. They held free elections and
have a new constitution.

For Iraqis, deciding if the invasion was worth the sacrifice
depends partly on their sect and ethnicity and where they live.

Saddam, a Sunni Arab, persecuted the country's majority
Shi'ites and Kurds. Shi'ites now hold the reins of power while
once-dominant Sunni Arabs have become marginalised.

In Baghdad, epicentre of a sectarian war in 2006 and 2007
that nearly tore Iraq apart, people long for the safe streets of
Saddam's era. In the Shi'ite south, they no longer fear Saddam's
henchmen, but rival Shi'ite factions competing for influence.

In the north, the economy of largely autonomous Kurdistan is
flourishing in a region that Kurds call "the other Iraq".

Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari, a Kurd, said Iraq was
moving in the right direction. Those who felt the invasion was a
mistake should remember Saddam's atrocities, he said.

Zebari said proof that a majority of Iraqis supported the
overthrow of Saddam was their participation in 2005 elections.

"The brutality of Saddam's regime deformed society in many
ways so we have to be patient," he told Reuters in an interview.

"Compared to the experience of other nations I think we have
done very well. But yes, it has been very, very costly."

Um Khalid, a 40-year old Baghdad hairdresser, said violence
was so random that no one knew if they would be its next victim.

"No, no, no. What happened was not worth it. Those who say
things are better are lying," she said.


KILLED OVER THEIR NAME

Many Iraqis vividly recall the chaotic months after the
invasion on March 20, 2003, symbolised by the toppling of a big
statue of Saddam in central Baghdad.

Their euphoria at new freedoms and hopes the United States
would transform Iraq into another rich Gulf Arab state were
dashed as Sunni Arabs rose up against their new rulers and car
bombs turned markets and mosques into killing fields.

In February 2006, suspected al Qaeda militants blew up a
revered Shi'ite mosque in the town of Samarra, unleashing a wave
of sectarian violence that meant being a Shi'ite or a Sunni in
the wrong neighbourhood could be a death sentence.

"Before 2003, we lived under a tough regime, no one can deny
that," said Abu Wasan, 55, a former army brigadier-general and a
senior member of Saddam's disbanded Baath party.

"But at least we never heard of bodies getting dumped on
garbage just because people had a Sunni or a Shi'ite name."

The worst of the sectarian carnage is over, at least for
now. A year ago, police would find up to 50 bodies in the
streets of Baghdad each day. That number has dropped to single
digits thanks to the deployment of additional U.S. troops and
ceasefires by many Shi'ite and Sunni Arabs militants. Also in
many Baghdad areas ethnic cleansing has already been completed.


GRIM NUMBERS

The latest tolls from the widely cited human rights group
Iraq Body Count show up to 89,000 civilians have been killed
since 2003. Research conducted by one of Britain's leading
polling groups, however, puts the death toll at 1 million.

The U.S. military death toll stands at 3,975.

Other statistics make for grim reading.

The United Nations estimates 4 million Iraqis are struggling
to feed themselves while 40 percent of the country's 27 million
people have no safe water. The Iraqi doctors' syndicate says up
to 70 percent of spe******t doctors have fled abroad.

Iraq's national power grid, devastated by years of war and
sanctions, leaves millions in the dark. The country has the
world's third largest reserves of oil, but motorists sometimes
queue at petrol stations for hours.

"I have been in this queue since dawn waiting to fill my
car," said Abdullah Ahmed, 53, a taxi driver in the northern
city of Kirkuk, which sits atop huge reserves of oil.

"What democracy? What prosperity? When the statue fell, we
thought we would live like the Gulf, but that was just words."

People with such views are overlooking the joy of speaking
freely, said Ahmed Sebti, 39, owner of a kebab restaurant in the
southern Shi'ite city of Najaf.

In the past, making fun of Saddam could have deadly
consequences. The current president, Jalal Talabani, has a keen
sense of humour and loves satire.

"Before, civil servants couldn't eat kebabs. Now my income
depends on them. Living standards are better," said Sebti.

Some Iraqis fear the invasion has set into motion political
forces that could lead to the partition of Iraq into Shi'ite,
Sunni Arab and Kurdish regions -- a prospect that would
inevitably be bloody and may drag in neighbouring countries.

But Iraq is no longer a threat to its neighbours.

It is also one of the few countries in the region to hold
free elections, something unheard of in neighbouring Gulf Arab
countries. Provincial elections that could redraw Iraq's
political map are expected later this year.

Sheikh Fatwa al-Jerboa, a Sunni Arab tribal leader in the
northern city of Mosul, said there was plenty to be happy about.

"I feel grateful to the British and Americans for ousting
this dreadful dictator. Now we enjoy freedom of speech and the
freedom to choose our own leaders," he said.

Yousif Kamil, 25, in the northern city of Baiji, disagreed.

"It was a big mistake by America. We will remember it as
they remember Vietnam," he said.

Link to the Reuters Article

[Ozme52]

As far as the Iraquis are concerned they're still in minus from the invasion. But it's a bit short-term view to see it in. Democracy takes many years to evolve into something useful. Right now everything sucks ass in Iraq. They have less safety and less protection from the law than they had before. I still support the invasion.

I tend to agree... but still would have preferred dealing with the actual terrorist organizations first. There still has been no proof (imo) that Hussein was involved with 9/11...

If this country needed Hussein out of power, we should have done it when we pushed him out of Kuwait. Bush senior was as indecisive and ill-advised then as Bush junior appears arrogant and ill-advised now. Neither is a quality I like to see in a president.

[mkemse]

Well, as is typical, you only quoted (and emphasized) the parts you like.

Here's the rest of the article. Good and bad. One must decide if the good outweighs the bad... if the historical parallels justify the means. Ask Cuban expatriots and they'd tell you they feel let down because we didn't follow through and oust Castro.

Damned if you do... damned if you don't.





Link to the Reuters Article

Thank you for your kind remarks

[mkemse]

I tend to agree... but still would have preferred dealing with the actual terrorist organizations first. There still has been no proof (imo) that Hussein was involved with 9/11...

If this country needed Hussein out of power, we should have done it when we pushed him out of Kuwait. Bush senior was as indecisive and ill-advised then as Bush junior appears arrogant and ill-advised now. Neither is a quality I like to see in a president.

after 5 years and currenty spending $12 billion a month i hardly see ANY Bright Spot

[mkemse]

Terrorism would still exisit today if we did not go into Iraq,we just aggrivated the situation by going there, and until we got there there was NO Al Qudia, they were and are based for the most part In The Tora Bora Mountains and in Afghanistan where ALL our efforts should be and have been remained after 9/11
Only after we Invaded Iraq was Al Quida there

[mkemse]

i do not want to get into a debate ver us being in Iraq, everyne has there own opnion of should we or not i wassimply tryingto point out part of a story about how Iraqi's People feel about it, andfelt that the portion of the story posted was sufficeint to explain, therst was not intentionalnot post but was not viewed as relelvant, the statics showed in the begiging ofthe article were main main reson for the post

my sincereest apologies to anyone who felt they were mislead, that was not the intention, but to simply point out Iraqi's Citizens feeling on the war and our being there, i was not taking sides

[Ozme52]

Thank you for your kind remarks

Ah. Sarcasm!

[Ozme52]

after 5 years and currenty spending $12 billion a month i hardly see ANY Bright Spot

Don't complain to me. Go tell Reuters. It is their report you used to start this conversation and it is their right to show both sides of the debate.


They used the term 'bright side'

[mkemse]

Ah. Sarcasm!

it was not or inteneded to be sarcasim i just wanted to thank you for your remarks, i have at times a more diffuckut exression myself without it coming out that way, turst me it was mean as nothing otherthen a sincere thank you

[mkemse]

Don't complain to me. Go tell Reuters. It is their report you used to start this conversation and it is their right to show both sides of the debate.


They used the term 'bright side'

i know they used that term, that was a genric remark directed at them not you, i know it was their report not yours

[Ozme52]

Terrorism would still exisit today if we did not go into Iraq,we just aggrivated the situation by going there, and until we got there there was NO Al Qudia, they were and are based for the most part In The Tora Bora Mountains and in Afghanistan where ALL our efforts should be and have been remained after 9/11
Only after we Invaded Iraq was Al Quida there

That's irrelevent. And inaccurate. All you can say is they began fighting us there after we ousted Hussein. You have no way to validate the statement that they didn't operate in Iraq under Hussein.

Nor can you validate that they wouldn't have hidden in Iraq (or any other sympathetic country) if we had poured all our efforts into eradicating them in Afganistan. No more than I can say they would have. It's all "what if" supposition.

[Ozme52]

i do not want to get into a debate ver us being in Iraq, everyne has there own opnion of should we or not i wassimply tryingto point out part of a story about how Iraqi's People feel about it, andfelt that the portion of the story posted was sufficeint to explain, therst was not intentionalnot post but was not viewed as relelvant, the statics showed in the begiging ofthe article were main main reson for the post

my sincereest apologies to anyone who felt they were mislead, that was not the intention, but to simply point out Iraqi's Citizens feeling on the war and our being there, i was not taking sides

Obviously... because you left out anything that pointed out anything good. Did you READ anything beyond the one-sided statements you posted?

[Wind_Walker25]

Freedom Will Always Coast! How many must die, How Much Is Freedom Worth!!!

[mkemse]

That's irrelevent. And inaccurate. All you can say is they began fighting us there after we ousted Hussein. You have no way to validate the statement that they didn't operate in Iraq under Hussein.

Nor can you validate that they wouldn't have hidden in Iraq (or any other sympathetic country) if we had poured all our efforts into eradicating them in Afganistan. No more than I can say they would have. It's all "what if" supposition.

all i was trying to point out is that we should have used and should now only be usiing our Military rescourses to fight Al Quida in Afghansistan after 9/11 and not have invaded Iraq, at the time of 9/11, Al Quida was in Afghansistan that is where the Taiban was and is still there, and the Taliban is part of Al Quida, they ran the Afghan Governement at the time of 9/11 they did not run Iraq,

[Wind_Walker25]

You are right! But thousands of Curds if I spelled that right, are free and they thank US every day

[Alex Bragi]

Gentleman, please let's keep it cool and calm.

mkemse, you are entitled to quote portions of the article. Oz, you are entitled to post the full article.

All opinions on the topic are welcome. Negative opinions of other members are not.

[Wind_Walker25]

This is one of those times, when you are both right. I wish we did not go into Irag.
But we are there Now. I say get the job done. If we do not we will pay in ways I do not want to think about!

[Thorne]

I tend to agree... but still would have preferred dealing with the actual terrorist organizations first. There still has been no proof (imo) that Hussein was involved with 9/11...

True enough. As far as I can determine, the only possible connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda was financial support, probably indirectly. If that justified invasion then virtually every Islamic nation would have to be targeted.

If this country needed Hussein out of power, we should have done it when we pushed him out of Kuwait. Bush senior was as indecisive and ill-advised then as Bush junior appears arrogant and ill-advised now. Neither is a quality I like to see in a president.

I have to disagree with you here, Oz. While I agree it would have been nice for Bush Sr. to finish him off, the UN mandate for the war was to push him out of Kuwait. Once that was done the job was done. If we'd tried to go further chances are we would have alienated the meager support from those Arab countries which were supporting us. We would have been virtually alone in the attacks and with no supply base or local air bases for support. It's even possible that Iran, which remained neutral and out of the way while Iraq was pummeled, may have sent troops across the border to prevent us from getting to Baghdad. It could have been a disaster.

[Ozme52]

I have to disagree with you here, Oz. While I agree it would have been nice for Bush Sr. to finish him off, the UN mandate for the war was to push him out of Kuwait. Once that was done the job was done. If we'd tried to go further chances are we would have alienated the meager support from those Arab countries which were supporting us. We would have been virtually alone in the attacks and with no supply base or local air bases for support.

That was certainly the reasoning and the rationalization at that time... and it was short sighted. Hussein continued to persecute shiites, kurds, and anyone in Iraq who vocally objected to his methods. He cheated on the oil for food agreements he made with the UN. And he almost certainly used that money to support terrorism worldwide under the presumption that creating chaos was to his advantage.

It amazingly paralleled the apeasement policies that allowed Hitler to rearm Germany in the 1930's... but that's certainly debatable.

If Iraq had been subdued then, everything would have been different... maybe worse, but more likely better.

It's even possible that Iran, which remained neutral and out of the way while Iraq was pummeled, may have sent troops across the border to prevent us from getting to Baghdad. It could have been a disaster.

At the time, Iraq and Iran were beligerents, enemies. Iran would have welcomed Hussein's elimination, and they did when it finally happened. Iran (supporting insurgents) presumably stepped into vacuum we left by not getting the occupation right in the first place.

The Wehrmacht took Yugoslavia with a minimal force and couldn't control the population with 400,000 troops. Those who ignore the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them. Personally, I rolled my eyes when Bush claimed victory on that aircraft carrier.

[Thorne]

That was certainly the reasoning and the rationalization at that time... and it was short sighted. Hussein continued to persecute shiites, kurds, and anyone in Iraq who vocally objected to his methods. He cheated on the oil for food agreements he made with the UN. And he almost certainly used that money to support terrorism worldwide under the presumption that creating chaos was to his advantage.

It amazingly paralleled the apeasement policies that allowed Hitler to rearm Germany in the 1930's... but that's certainly debatable.

If Iraq had been subdued then, everything would have been different... maybe worse, but more likely better.

I'm reminded more of 1945, following the surrender of Germany. Supposedly George Patton advocated rearming the Wehrmacht and pushing on against the Russians, under the assumption that we were going to have to fight them sooner or later anyway, it might as well be right then when we had the manpower and equipment in place to do it. Would it have been the smart thing to do? Possibly, but probably not. The same holds true for Iraq in '91. In hindsight it might have been wiser to go on and depose him, but probably not.

At the time, Iraq and Iran were beligerents, enemies. Iran would have welcomed Hussein's elimination, and they did when it finally happened. Iran (supporting insurgents) presumably stepped into vacuum we left by not getting the occupation right in the first place.

True, Iran would probably not have joined with Saddam, but they wouldn't have stood by and let "The Great Satan" move into the region. Iran in 1991 was much more belligerent and threatening than they are now.

The Wehrmacht took Yugoslavia with a minimal force and couldn't control the population with 400,000 troops. Those who ignore the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them. Personally, I rolled my eyes when Bush claimed victory on that aircraft carrier.

Yeah, and we're having the same problems the Germans did: our troops are not trained or equipped to fight a guerilla war. And the Germans had the chetniks to help them.
BTW, I'm not sure I would qualify an invasion by 21 German divisions as a "minimal force" but I understand your meaning.

[DOMLORD]

can you really train an army to fight against guerilla and follow the geniva conventions? people will be in an up roar about that if we ever did something like that. however violence is down in iraq (a little bit, but still not much) and its up in afghanistan. i think if we could make a difference in afghanistan we can do it in iraq, but then again that's just my natural optomist.

[Thorne]

can you really train an army to fight against guerilla and follow the geniva conventions? people will be in an up roar about that if we ever did something like that. however violence is down in iraq (a little bit, but still not much) and its up in afghanistan. i think if we could make a difference in afghanistan we can do it in iraq, but then again that's just my natural optomist.

I doubt that you could train an army to fight against them, but an elite group of commando-type fighters might be able to make a difference. The problem is doing it within the "Rules of War", if there is such a thing. I think the only real way to fight that kind of battle is to infiltrate the guerrilla groups and execute their leaders, as brutally and publicly as possible. Don't try to capture them, don't try to reason with them, don't ever let them off the hook. You go in and grab hold and kill them, one at a time or in groups, until the units wither away and die.
It wouldn't be pretty, it probably wouldn't be legal and, if the US news media found out about it they would castrate (figuratively, hopefully) the soldiers doing the work, the generals who sent them out and the lawmakers who appropriated the funding. But if you consistently take out the leadership you will eventually have a group of guerrillas who won't know how to carry on fighting.

[TomOfSweden]

Patton is a great example of a great military leader who would have been a terrible political leader.

It's important for a soldier to be decisive a strong. It's important for a politician to have popular support. These are very different qualities.

Collateral damage is not a term used in civilian matters. Anybody caught up in any conflict will in political debate and in the press be judged as unacceptable.

There was that blog that kid in Baghdad wrote during the war where he exemplified the ambivalent Iraqi position. He was pretty clear that he hated Saddam Hussein and wanted to be rid of him. But at the same time he did not forgive USA for any civilian casualties. No matter how much we may rationally may understand how unreasonable this demand is, this is how normal people think. I do. If there's a war on and a friend or relative of me dies, and the attacker is from some completely alien source, in my head I'd blame the aliens for their death.

So basically the Iraqi's will blame USA for everything bad happening but assume anything good happening is a result of their own work. Just plain human dumb-ass nature. We're all guilty of this thinking. USA knew that going in and will naturally have to deal with taking the blame for all eternity for anything bad every happening in Iraq from the war onward.

That is a large reason why I thought it was idiotic by the USA to attack with such a small coalition. If it would have been more countries in the invading force there would have been more countries to take the blame. A large group always turn into an anonymous mass, and USA wouldn't have to deal with all this animosity.

Just in the same way, US citizens will in general be completely non-plussed about the Iraqi reaction and just assume they're ungrateful and think collateral damage should be acceptable for the Iraqi's. Just really dumb ass positive thinking.

All in all, when it comes to our own, we all have a tendency to be really stupid and short sighted. All of us.

[GS42]

'You can't fight for a cause! A cause is just a thing!' said Rincewind.
'Then we are fighting for the peasants,' said Butterfly. She'd backed away. Rincewind's anger was coming off him like steam.
'Oh? Have you ever met them?'
'I - have seen them.'
'Oh, good! And what is it you want to achieve?'
'A better life for the people,' said Butterfly coldly.
'You think you having some uprising and hanging a few people will do it? Well, I come from Ankh-Morpork and we've had more rebellions and civil wars than you've had ... lukewarm ducks' feet, and you know what? The rulers are still in charge! They always are!'
They smiled at him in polite and nervous incomprehension.
'Look,' he said, rubbing his forehead. 'All those people out in the fields, the water buffalo people . . . If you have a revolution it'll all be better for them, will it?'
'Of course,' said Butterfly. 'They will no longer be subject to the cruel and capricious whims of the Forbidden City.'
'Oh, that's good,' said Rincewind. 'So they'll sort of be in charge of themselves, will they?'
'Indeed,' said Lotus Blossom.
'By means of the People's Committee,' said Butterfly.
Rincewind pressed both hands to his head.
'My word,' he said. 'I don't know why, but I had this predictive flash!'
They looked impressed.
'I had this sudden feeling,' he went on, 'that there won't be all that many peasants on the People's Committee. In fact ... I get this kind of ... voice telling me that a lot of the People's Committee, correct me if I'm wrong, are standing in front of me right now?'
'Initially, of course,' said Butterfly. 'The peasants can't even read and write.'
'I expect they don't even know how to farm properly,' said Rincewind, gloomily. 'Not after doing it for only three or four thousand years.'
'We certainly believe that there are many improvements that could be made, yes,' said Butterfly. 'If we act collectively.'
'I bet they'll be really glad when you show them,' said Rincewind. [...] He wanted to say: how can you be so nice and yet so dumb? The best thing you can do with the peasants is leave them alone. Let them get on with it. When people who can read and write start fighting on behalf of people who can't, you just end up with another kind of stupidity. If you want to help them, build a big library or something somewhere and leave the door open.

Terry Pratchett, Interesting Times

The whole debate often reminds me of this passage. I think Terry captured the problem rather well: you can't drive out one dictator and force people you never met to lead themselves. I think the envasion should never have happened, but since it has, you can't retreat now. Too late...

[wmrs2]

Great acknowledgment of the way things are Terry Pratchett. I wish everybody could see what you seel The whole debate reminds me of this passage. I think Terry captured the problem rather well:

you can't drive out one dictator and force people you never met to lead themselves. I think the envasion should never have happened, but since it has, you can't retreat now. Too late...

Now that things are the way they are, we have to deal with it from what we know about today. I think all respondents on this thread have correctly identified the mistakes America has made in the War. Isn't hindsight great? Now, we must try hard to not repeat the mistakes we have collectively pointed out.

It would have been super if President Bush had handled the invasion better by not dismantling the army of Iraq but rather having kept them together to help bring stability to the country. It would would have been better than starting from scratch in building a new army. Having failed to do this, it would have been better to have brought more soldiers to keep the peace strong in Iraq until the civilian population could recover. Isn't hindsight wonderful?

It took us too long to realize that the surge was necessary. I hope every citizen wants the surge to work. But, there is that group of citizens who seek political advantage by seeing our national interest fail in Iraq. That may have something to do with why the House in Congress refuses to vote on legislation related to the war effort. If the war was to wind down in Iraq because Al Queada was being pushed out of Iraq, it would hurt a lot of politicians' arguments.

Right or wrong, regardless of the mistakes we have made, it is costing us too much money to continue the war. However, we can not afford to pull out and leave Iraq to Al Queada or the Iranians, both of whom have said they would fill the vacuum with the departure of the Americans. I like what Obama said on NBC News that if Al Queada established a stronghold in Iraq that he would send the troops back in, if he were President.

There may not be a perfect option, but would it not be less expensive in the long run to pull together and make sure the job is done quickly and completely. Our enemies know no borders and to defeat them, we have to go where they are or else they will come to us. Our country can't just say we stop the war because it is too expensive. The enemy will not stop killing us regardless. Although we know that the enemy has a fall back tactic, which is to ruin our economy. This is another good reason to act quickly and decisively.

One more thing, without meaning insult to anybody, I do think it less than patriotic to use the war as an avenue to gain political advantage. When Al Queada kills our citizens around the world and in Iraq, they do not ask if you are a Democrat or Republican. They simply want to kill Americans. We need so badly to have a united effort against our enemies so much that Al Queada is not a cheerleader for whomever wins the election.

[mkemse]

When ever ANY President goes to War be they a Democrat or a Republican you must have an end plan, how do you pla nto end the War, NOT when but how

If anyone goes back to the time when GWB went on TV and annouced his plans for his shock and Awe bombing atthe beginnig ofthe Invaion, he said he pplans were to go into Iraq, get the job done and be out in 90 days, then 4 year ltaer he says "We misjudged our enemaies"
Well Mr. Bush, when you go inot ANY WAR you can't misjudge you enemay, you must know at all time who you are fighiting, why you are fighting them and how many of you enemay you are fighiting against, THIS WAS NEVErR DONE
When peole say he mis maganged thewar, they are saying,you went in, dropped bombs, had no lcue who you enemy was beyond Hussien, then say we misjudhed the enemey, the number in the enemy had ect
You have to have some calculated idea how many peole you are going to be figihitng against, their basic location, what there steengths are, weakenss are and plan that way and not just go in to complete a job the maybe Bush Sr. never dd but to go into ANY War with only a plan to invade and nothing else is like going Chrismtas shopping ghen half way throughthey day saying, "Gee we neevr planned or decided on how much money to spend on gifts"
If you go to War go in with a PLan or do not go in
The War currently costs the United States $1.2 Billlion Dollars a month that is ore then all our other war combines as I understand it, we have lost over 4,200 Men/Women and children
Al Quida will KILL anyone who does not believe in their distored views of the Koran, and even Muslim Clerks in this country has said that the Koran expresedly Forbids and Prohibits killing of anyone, in anyway for anyreason so the Terrorists rational of the Koran holds no water and theur view in interpret their own Religious Holy Book in a very distored way
Be you Canandian, American, Russian, Chinese, Viet Namese, Italian ect ect, if you do not believe what and supportwhat the Terrorists believe in, you are a Target for them
They Kill woh they kill simply because the have no respect for humanity, and because other do not agreee with their views on Islam
If we never Invaded Iraq, who si to say that Al Quida would ahve even go there, they were not their til we invaded, and if they were, they were in small numbers and hidingso well ,their precense would have made no difference
No the amswer is not to pull together to getthe job done not at $1.2 Billlion US Dollars everything 30 days, when we have Amercians who have no medical insurence, can'tafford gas, are loosing their homes to forclusre, that $1.2 milloin couuld go to help them
The smartest thing GWB could have done was not go into Iraq, unles he has undiniable proof and evidence that WMD's exsisted, people outside his admistration that would in fact veryify they really did exist, and show picutres of the WMD not pictures of where they MAY BE STORED but the actualy WMD's, and certainly not have lanaded on an Air Craft Carrier 3 years ago, jump out of a fighter jet in a Flight Suit, with a huge Banner acrsoo the site ofthe Air Craft Carrier that reads "Mission Accomplished" if it fact it was accomplished why are we still there, if it was NOT accompished then the President lied to the American People, very clear cut, we either didi our joband came home or did not do our job but are advertizing we did

if they could offer ground photos whic they did of the alleged storable places of WMD's why not go in andsee if they exisit
If a crime is committted, and the Police investigate it, they will never ever arrest anyone til the have enough evidence that a particular persaon commmited the crime evidence that shows the person did commmit it and not just "We though th e didso we arrested him" that rarely happens in this country so why should it happen in Iraq
A Disrect Attorney will not charge ayone with a crime til the evidenc the have is so over whelmng there is no wat that person did not commit the crime, why did GWB nottakethe same approach and tell histeam of Security Experts ect "I will aprroive the Invasion of Iraq, but before I do i want Indeputable evidencethat WMS' do exist, indepsutable evdience the Al Quida is hiding in Iraq and if this evidencecan not be presented, we do not invade and they say Ohsorry or info ou intellience was faulty, oyu makesure it is not faulty before you go in not after you are in

[mkemse]

Monday, March 10, 2008

Exhaustive review finds no link between Saddam and al Qaida

WASHINGTON — An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network.

The Pentagon-sponsored study, scheduled for release later this week, did confirm that Saddam's regime provided some support to other terrorist groups, particularly in the Middle East, U.S. officials told McClatchy. However, his security services were directed primarily against Iraqi exiles, Shiite Muslims, Kurds and others he considered enemies of his regime.

The new study of the Iraqi regime's archives found no documents indicating a "direct operational link" between Hussein's Iraq and al Qaida before the invasion, according to a U.S. official familiar with the report.

He and others spoke to McClatchy on condition of anonymity because the study isn't due to be shared with Congress and released before Wednesday.

President Bush and his aides used Saddam's alleged relationship with al Qaida, along with Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, as arguments for invading Iraq after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld claimed in September 2002 that the United States had "bulletproof" evidence of cooperation between the radical Islamist terror group and Saddam's secular dictatorship.

Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell cited multiple linkages between Saddam and al Qaida in a watershed February 2003 speech to the United Nations Security Council to build international support for the invasion. Almost every one of the examples Powell cited turned out to be based on bogus or misinterpreted intelligence.

As recently as last July, Bush tried to tie al Qaida to the ongoing violence in Iraq. "The same people that attacked us on September the 11th is a crowd that is now bombing people, killing innocent men, women and children, many of whom are Muslims," he said.

The new study, entitled "Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents", was essentially completed last year and has been undergoing what one U.S. intelligence official described as a "painful" declassification review.

It was produced by a federally-funded think tank, the Institute for Defense Analyses, under contract to the Norfolk, Va.-based U.S. Joint Forces Command.

Spokesmen for the Joint Forces Command declined to comment until the report is released. One of the report's authors, Kevin Woods, also declined to comment.

The issue of al Qaida in Iraq already has played a role in the 2008 presidential campaign.

Sen. John McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee, mocked Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill, recently for saying that he'd keep some U.S. troops in Iraq if al Qaida established a base there.

"I have some news. Al Qaida is in Iraq," McCain told supporters. Obama retorted that, "There was no such thing as al Qaida in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade." (In fact, al Qaida in Iraq didn't emerge until 2004, a year after the invasion.)

The new study appears destined to be used by both critics and supporters of Bush's decision to invade Iraq to advance their own familiar arguments.

While the documents reveal no Saddam-al Qaida links, they do show that Saddam and his underlings were willing to use terrorism against enemies of the regime and had ties to regional and global terrorist groups, the officials said.

However, the U.S. intelligence official, who's read the full report, played down the prospect of any major new revelations, saying, "I don't think there's any surprises there."

[B]Saddam, whose regime was relentlessly secular, was wary of Islamic extremist groups [/B]such as al Qaida, although like many other Arab leaders, he gave some financial support to Palestinian groups that sponsored terrorism against Israel.According to the State Department's annual report on global terrorism for 2002 — the last before the Iraq invasion — Saddam supported the militant Islamic group Hamas in Gaza, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, a radical, Syrian-based terrorist group.

Saddam also hosted Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal, although the Abu Nidal Organization was more active when he lived in Libya and he was murdered in Baghdad in August 2002, possibly on Saddam's orders.

An earlier study based on the captured Iraqi documents, released by the Joint Forces Command in March 2006, found that a militia Saddam formed after the 1991 Persian Gulf war, the Fedayeen Saddam, planned assassinations and bombings against his enemies. Those included Iraqi exiles and opponents in Iraq's Kurdish and Shiite communities.

Other documents indicate that the Fedayeen Saddam opened paramilitary training camps that, starting in 1998, hosted "Arab volunteers" from outside of Iraq. What happened to the non-Iraqi volunteers is unknown, however, according to the earlier study.

The new Pentagon study isn't the first to refute earlier administration contentions about Saddam and al Qaida.

A September 2006 report by the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that Saddam was "distrustful of al Qaida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al Qaida to provide material or operational support."

The Senate report, citing an FBI debriefing of a senior Iraqi spy, Faruq Hijazi, said that Saddam turned down a request for assistance by bin Laden which he made at a 1995 meeting in Sudan with an Iraqi operative