3 of 3 debunked. 1) No WMDs 2) Not for the War on Terror and 3) Not for freedom and democracy for Iraqis

--------------------------------------

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,642825,00.html

Why al-Qaeda Thrives

President Bush says Iraq is the central front in the war on terror, but security experts say Iraq is the reason Bin Laden's movement is growing

By TONY KARON

Whether or not a decent outcome is eventually achieved, Iraq won't present President Bush with the triumphant centerpiece of a successful reelection campaign. Still, Americans' fear of terror remains a rich seam of political support for the president — indeed, recent polls indicate that while more Americans believe his presumptive challenger, Senator John Kerry, would do a better job handling Iraq, Bush has a significant lead when the question is who would do a better job of fighting terrorism. Not surprisingly, then, the president's handlers have sought to make terrorism the prism through which the Bush presidency must be viewed — even when the conversation turns to Iraq.

President Bush framed his Monday keynote address on Iraq around the idea that the country is now "the central front in the war on terror." He implied that the invasion of Iraq was a choice forced on the U.S. by the Sept. 11 attacks and that the enemy facing the U.S. there shares al-Qaeda's goal of establishing "Taliban-type" rule. In all, he used the words "terror" or "terrorist/terrorism" 19 times. But the president's characterization will hardly have resonated with his Iraqi audience, who see al-Qaeda as a problem brought into their country by the U.S. invasion rather than by Saddam Hussein. Even the U.S. intelligence community has long maintained that Saddam's regime had no connection with the 9/11 attacks, while U.S. commanders on the ground in Iraq say that foreign terrorists constitute only a small fraction of the insurgency facing Coalition troops there.

If, indeed, there is a connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda, it may not be the kind the Bush campaign is likely to dwell on. The same day the President spoke, the prestigious International Institute for Strategic Studies released its annual survey that found, among other things, that far from dealing a blow to al-Qaeda and making the U.S. and its allies safer, the Iraq invasion has in fact substantially strengthened bin Laden's network and increased the danger of attacks in the West. And the London-based IISS is not some Bush-bashing antiwar think tank; it hosted the president's keynote address during his embattled visit to the British late last year.

The IISS reported that al-Qaeda's recruitment and fundraising efforts had been given a major boost by the U.S. invasion of Iraq. It estimated that bin Laden's network today commands some 18,000 men, of which about 1,000 are currently inside Iraq. After almost three years of President Bush's war on terror, the IISS offered the following assessment of the movement's prospects: "Although half of al-Qaeda's 30 senior leaders and perhaps 2,000 rank-and-file members have been killed or captured, a rump leadership is still intact and more than 18,000 potential terrorists are still at large, with recruitment accelerating on account of Iraq." The continuing danger of an al-Qaeda strike inside the U.S. as it moves into election season was underscored Wednesday by Attorney General John Ashcroft, who warned that intelligence tips suggest that the movement plans to attack inside the U.S. some time in the coming months. It was a non-specific warning, of course, and the color-coded terror alert level was not raised as a result. But the announcement affirmed for Americans the fact that they remain vulnerable to al-Qaeda attack, if better prepared and forewarned than three years ago.

So why is al-Qaeda continuing to grow and prosper despite the loss of its Afghan sanctuaries and so many of its personnel, and the fact that it has been relentlessly hounded by security services across Europe, the Middle East and Southeast Asia? The consensus among security analysts is that the key to eliminating al-Qaeda as a threat is to transform the permissive political environment in which it operates in the Muslim world. Instead, the opposite has occurred — Muslim anger at the U.S. has reached an all-time high and continues to grow, driven by outrage at U.S. actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and by Israel's actions against the Palestinians. The precipitous decline in support or sympathy for the U.S. in the Muslim world after 9/11 has meant fertile ground for al-Qaeda recruiters.

Authoritative voices from the IISS to former U.S. commander for the Mideast and Bush administration envoy to the region General Anthony Zinni to Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies have lately warned that the achievement of U.S. goals in the Middle East depends on its ability to revive and complete the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The administration's approach has been to leave that issue on the back burner while pursuing Iraq on the assumption that ousting Saddam's regime would facilitate peace between Israel and the Palestinians — an argument dismissed as spurious by Zinni, Cordesman and others. Instead, the Iraq occupation and the ongoing conflict in the West Bank and Gaza has burnished al-Qaeda's appeal in relation to the pro-U.S. Arab regimes it hopes to supplant, because these regimes appear powerless to affect the plight of the Palestinians and Iraqis. With seemingly no Arab leaders capable of protecting Arab interests, bin Laden paints himself and his politics of suicidal jihad as the path to redeeming Islam's lost honor.

While al-Qaeda's appeal in the Arab and Muslim world has grown in the years since 9/11, the group has not mounted a single attack in the U.S. in the same period. Bin Laden's goals are to rally Muslims to the cause of jihad, in order to drive the U.S. and its influence out of the Islamic world and restore the Islamic empire of the Middle Ages. And the antagonism provoked by U.S. actions such as invading Iraq have been more effective even than the terror of 9/11 in building support for the movement. Still, al-Qaeda continues to seek to mount mass-casualty terror attacks in the U.S. It has been hampered by the U.S.-led crackdown on its organizational structures, and by the domestic security efforts that have made operations across such great distances more difficult. Al-Qaeda will necessarily have had to put new leadership and communication protocols in place, and its decentralization and dispersion may have changed the very nature of its operations. It has continued to strike in Europe and Asia, and of course Iraq. But now the Bush administration is warning that it plans to attack in the U.S. too, in time to have an impact on the election.

The last al-Qaeda terror strike on U.S. soil rallied the overwhelming majority of Americans strongly behind President Bush. Whether and how a new terror strike on U.S. soil three years later might do the same remains to be seen. But whereas the 9/11 attack shocked and horrified much of the international community, including the Arab and Muslim world, and drew them initially closer to Washington, it's unlikely that a new attack would do much to reverse the deep polarization of the international community brought on by the war in Iraq.

Iraq was an issue even before the US invasion last year. There was widespread Muslim anger at the UN sanctions that were slowly but surely killing off Iraqis by denying them adequate food and medicine. As justification for declaring war on the US, Osama not only brought up the Palestinian issue but also that of the Iraqi sanctions. The US never invade, they complain already. The US invade, they complain even more. They are better complainers than Singaporeans.

Now that Saddam is gone and the opportunity for building a new Iraq exists, the Muslim fundamentalists themselves are sabotaging the future of their own brothers in Iraq. Quite funny how many people think prisoner abuse is shocking but somehow seem to condone the suicide bombings in Iraq as heroic acts of resistance.

What's even more amazing, is that we actually have people who think that fixing Iraq is going to be a cakewalk, that everything would run smoothy and go according to the way they would like to see it happen, in a country like Iraq.

What's more wanting is that while they decry the ouster of Saddam, they themselves have no alternative solution to the plight of the Iraqis. What? Keep Saddam in power? Ask the UN to keep giving him limpid slaps on the wrists and ask him to be nice? Let him enjoy all his nation's oil money while the commoner suffers?

And do they have any answers to the situtation as it is now? What are their ideas? Knock Bush out and withdraw all forces from Iraq immediately? So far we have been hearing plenty of compliants from them about WMDs and stuff but very little constructive stuff.

Until they have any better ideas, I suggest they stow the high horse speech and put their minds to something more productive, like improving life for the ordinary Iraqi who dosen't care a whit about all the talk on WMDs and why Bush is bad. They just want a future.

The invasion of Iraq did increase muslim anger..that no one can deny..but think of it…2 or 3 years down the road, assuming the US succeed in what they set out to do.. and allow the world to see. What has the terrorist got to say? That the peace is dividing the middle east? Since what’s done is done…let’s turn our eyes to how the US is going to secure a future of Iraq since they own it now..if it turns out right…so what if there is no WMD? The world is still a safer place without saddam.

Originally posted by Jazzswing:

The invasion of Iraq did increase muslim anger..that no one can deny..but think of it...2 or 3 years down the road, assuming the US succeed in what they set out to do.. and allow the world to see. What has the terrorist got to say? That the peace is dividing the middle east? Since what's done is done...let's turn our eyes to how the US is going to secure a future of Iraq since they own it now..if it turns out right...so what if there is no WMD? The world is still a safer place without saddam.

it won't come to that because i think the american's won't succeed... they are in a place where they don't belong, don't have a reason to be in and offering a program nobody there is interested in.

i initially agreed with the war on Iraq... i felt that it made the world safer as well because saddam was essentially a "wild card" like kim jong il... but at least with saddam, u could put a face and a name to the enemy...

can we do the same now to Al Q?

at the same time, face it... the prisoner abuse scandal affected AMERICANS for than iraqis... it wouldn't surprise me if the phony pix were provided courtesy of al qaeda operatives... as a means to wage psychological warfare against the americans...

iraqis who have lived through the horrors of saddam's brutal regime (and not to mention arabs who live under other not so gentle gov't) really aren't shocked by a bunch of soldiers' descent into depravity... but they ARE indignant that the soldiers holding the whips are WHITE!

ultimately, u can only help those who want to be helped... and then again, not always utilising the methods u prefer.

so yes... it wouldn't surprise me one bit if Al Q got a shot in the arm thanks to the american invasion... it legitimised their cause and made them more relevent than they ever were before!

Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:

What's even more amazing, is that we actually have people who think that fixing Iraq is going to be a cakewalk, that everything would run smoothy and go according to the way they would like to see it happen, in a country like Iraq.

Yup, that was the mantra repeated over and over again by those who wanted to invade Iraq, namely Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice and others who populate NeoCon central.

Nobody on the anti war camp thought that invading and revuilding Iraq would be a cakewalk. Those were the prowar neocons who thought all Iraqis would welcome the invaders with open arms.

What's more wanting is that while they decry the ouster of Saddam, they themselves have no alternative solution to the plight of the Iraqis. What? Keep Saddam in power? Ask the UN to keep giving him limpid slaps on the wrists and ask him to be nice? Let him enjoy all his nation's oil money while the commoner suffers?

Theres a right way of doing the right thing and a wrong way of doing the right thing

Unlike what the pro-NeoCon propaganda outlets like to suggest, those who are against the war, then and now, are not Saddam lovers or Baath apologists. Many of them saw through the lies and deception spouted by Bush and his lackeys, and decided they wanted no part of this immoral war, good as removing Saddam might be, even before the war. They questioned the assessments on WMDs. They argued against violating international law based on questionable "evidence". They warned against invading and nation-building half-cocked with an emaciated force. They wondered if Iraqis will really be all that happy about having foreign troops running all over their country. But noooo...Bushy-boy wanted Iraq, and damn the consequences because they wouldn't happen because he felt they wouldn't.

The neocons can spout all they want about the good removing Saddam was, the fact remains that:

1) The justifications of the war is wrong
2) Al-Qaeda has been given a respite and is becoming stronger
3)The plight of Iraqis is NOT better. Freedom (Iraq has NO democracy) means diddly-squat if your country is overrun with well armed trigger yahoos who regard your countrymen and you as subhuman rag-heads

Originally posted by Jazzswing:

The invasion of Iraq did increase muslim anger..that no one can deny..but think of it...2 or 3 years down the road, assuming the US succeed in what they set out to do.. and allow the world to see.

That is a VERY BIG IF.

What has the terrorist got to say? That the peace is dividing the middle east? Since what's done is done...let's turn our eyes to how the US is going to secure a future of Iraq since they own it now..if it turns out right...so what if there is no WMD? The world is still a safer place without saddam.

Really? How so? Was Saddam threatening the world? How?

So what if Saddam doesn't have WMDs? I'll tell you what in one sentence. Its makes an illegal action even more wrong that it already it.

If the US attempts to secure a future for Iraq turns out right? Lets hope so, because they made their bed, and they'd better lie in it. Although on current evidence, they're frickin' clueless.

As the initial article suggests, invading Iraq has made the world more dangerous because it has given Al-Q's cause new impetus and caused the Americans to take their eyes off fighting the real terrorists.

Invading Iraq has made the world a more dangerous place yes, because it has created a new Afghanistan. A symbol of 'injustice' that has become a powerful rallying call for jihad. The world can fuck Bush and his neo-cons for all they want but they must realise this: Once Iraq descends into anarchy, Al-Qaeda will transform Iraq into a full-fledged Afghanistan. Then, it'll not only have symbolic value like now. It'll also have functional value with training camps, radical Islamic govt etc. Al-Qaeda knows this and this is exactly why they're doing all they can to get the US out.

Yes, Bush is probably wrong to go in there but since he's there now, there's no turning back. We cannot afford to fail in Iraq. While we criticise the US for its arrogance, we must acknowledge the importance of the task they are doing there now and give them support for it. Otherwise, it'll be a case of deja vu all over again.
Afghanistan Reloaded.

Originally posted by Langley:

Yes, Bush is probably wrong to go in there but since he's there now, there's no turning back. We cannot afford to fail in Iraq. While we criticise the US for its arrogance, we must acknowledge the importance of the task they are doing there now and give them support for it. Otherwise, it'll be a case of deja vu all over again.
Afghanistan Reloaded.

Yeah, since Bush has already launched the war..no use going by hindsight.. or "i-told-you-so" (no offence). Let's help..(or at least hope) that the US can do their job in rebuilding Iraq..coz if they fail..it's the future of the Iraq and their people thats in jeopady. (and Bush's credibility of course).

As for saddam, can't say he posed any immediate danger to the world before he fell, but i think there's no doubt he did pose some form of danger..3 wars were of his doing..gassed the Kurds (already historical facts, even the UN dosen't dispute it) what makes people so sure that he won't do that again if he has the chance?

And also, talk about sanctions most of the world has been imposing on saddam ond north korea's Kim. Containment seem to work...but is it really working? Some essential supplies like some types of medicine and chemicals are held back because of the fear that he could weaponise them, oil is traded for food according to proportion (or am i wrong?) prior to the case for war..2001--2003 we may not hear so much of starvation or lack of medical supplies, but does it mean they arn't there? It seems to me that the world is trying too hard to co-exist or tolerate these people (eg. saddam).
I'm no spokesperson for Bush though..

I think the WMD thing was used just to make a case for the war..but hey, if you look at the "ends justifying the means" point of view..at least there is some good of all of this.

But what do you people think was the REAL reason behind the invasion anyway? I'm curious...oil?

Neocon 101

Some basic questions answered.

http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html

What do neoconservatives believe?
"Neocons" believe that the United States should not be ashamed to use its unrivaled power – forcefully if necessary – to promote its values around the world. Some even speak of the need to cultivate a US empire. Neoconservatives believe modern threats facing the US can no longer be reliably contained and therefore must be prevented, sometimes through preemptive military action.

Most neocons believe that the US has allowed dangers to gather by not spending enough on defense and not confronting threats aggressively enough. One such threat, they contend, was Saddam Hussein and his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Since the 1991 Gulf War, neocons relentlessly advocated Mr. Hussein's ouster.

Most neocons share unwavering support for Israel, which they see as crucial to US military sufficiency in a volatile region. They also see Israel as a key outpost of democracy in a region ruled by despots. Believing that authoritarianism and theocracy have allowed anti-Americanism to flourish in the Middle East, neocons advocate the democratic transformation of the region, starting with Iraq. They also believe the US is unnecessarily hampered by multilateral institutions, which they do not trust to effectively neutralize threats to global security.

What are the roots of neoconservative beliefs?
The original neocons were a small group of mostly Jewish liberal intellectuals who, in the 1960s and 70s, grew disenchanted with what they saw as the American left's social excesses and reluctance to spend adequately on defense. Many of these neocons worked in the 1970s for Democratic Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a staunch anti-communist. By the 1980s, most neocons had become Republicans, finding in President Ronald Reagan an avenue for their aggressive approach of confronting the Soviet Union with bold rhetoric and steep hikes in military spending. After the Soviet Union's fall, the neocons decried what they saw as American complacency. In the 1990s, they warned of the dangers of reducing both America's defense spending and its role in the world.

Unlike their predecessors, most younger neocons never experienced being left of center. They've always been "Reagan" Republicans.

What is the difference between a neoconservative and a conservative?

Liberals first applied the "neo" prefix to their comrades who broke ranks to become more conservative in the 1960s and 70s. The defectors remained more liberal on some domestic policy issues. But foreign policy stands have always defined neoconservatism. Where other conservatives favored détente and containment of the Soviet Union, neocons pushed direct confrontation, which became their raison d'etre during the 1970s and 80s.

Today, both conservatives and neocons favor a robust US military. But most conservatives express greater reservations about military intervention and so-called nation building. Neocons share no such reluctance. The post 9/11-campaigns against regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate that the neocons are not afraid to force regime change and reshape hostile states in the American image. Neocons believe the US must do to whatever it takes to end state-supported terrorism. For most, this means an aggressive push for democracy in the Middle East. Even after 9/11, many other conservatives, particularly in the isolationist wing, view this as an overzealous dream with nightmarish consequences.

How have neoconservatives influenced US foreign policy?

Finding a kindred spirit in President Reagan, neocons greatly influenced US foreign policy in the 1980s.

But in the 1990s, neocon cries failed to spur much action. Outside of Reaganite think tanks and Israel's right-wing Likud Party, their calls for regime change in Iraq were deemed provocative and extremist by the political mainstream. With a few notable exceptions, such as President Bill Clinton's decision to launch isolated strikes at suspected terrorist targets in Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, their talk of preemptive military action was largely dismissed as overkill.

Despite being muted by a president who called for restraint and humility in foreign affairs, neocons used the 1990s to hone their message and craft their blueprint for American power. Their forward thinking and long-time ties to Republican circles helped many neocons win key posts in the Bush administration.

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 moved much of the Bush administration closer than ever to neoconservative foreign policy. Only days after 9/11, one of the top neoconservative think tanks in Washington, the Project for a New American Century, wrote an open letter to President Bush calling for regime change in Iraq. Before long, Bush, who campaigned in 2000 against nation building and excessive military intervention overseas, also began calling for regime change in Iraq. In a highly significant nod to neocon influence, Bush chose the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) as the venue for a key February 2003 speech in which he declared that a US victory in Iraq "could begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace." AEI – the de facto headquarters for neconservative policy – had been calling for democratization of the Arab world for more than a decade.

What does a neoconservative dream world look like?

Neocons envision a world in which the United States is the unchallenged superpower, immune to threats. They believe that the US has a responsibility to act as a "benevolent global hegemon." In this capacity, the US would maintain an empire of sorts by helping to create democratic, economically liberal governments in place of "failed states" or oppressive regimes they deem threatening to the US or its interests. In the neocon dream world the entire Middle East would be democratized in the belief that this would eliminate a prime breeding ground for terrorists. This approach, they claim, is not only best for the US; it is best for the world. In their view, the world can only achieve peace through strong US leadership backed with credible force, not weak treaties to be disrespected by tyrants.

Any regime that is outwardly hostile to the US and could pose a threat would be confronted aggressively, not "appeased" or merely contained. The US military would be reconfigured around the world to allow for greater flexibility and quicker deployment to hot spots in the Middle East, as well as Central and Southeast Asia. The US would spend more on defense, particularly for high-tech, precision weaponry that could be used in preemptive strikes. It would work through multilateral institutions such as the United Nations when possible, but must never be constrained from acting in its best interests whenever necessary.

Anyone here read books by Noam Chomsky?

Chomsky is abit too radical. Marxist even. But his US bashings always a nice read, heh

I agree with that.He may be quite leftist but his views on American hegemony are quite apt and true.

Yeah, the US can be really obnoxious at times. Think we all have a love-hate r/s with it. Can’t do with it. Can’t do without it.

On a slightly related note, you guys should take a test from the PoliticalCompass website to determine your political leanings.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Here's mine
Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.23

Apparently I'm like Gandhi to my most extreme surprise. Just don't wait for me to go on hunger strike if the govt increase GST again.

Economic Left/Right: -1.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.31

Good or bad?

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.51

I'm left of centre too but more on economics rather than social issues. Jazzswing is very slightly liberal on economics (-1.62) and very slightly conservative on social issues (0.31). Almost at the centre liao. This quiz is more oriented towards domestic issues. For a foreign policy quiz try this 'Are you a Neocon Quiz'.

http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/quiz/neoconQuiz.html

I'm a Kissingerian realist. Supporting containment but not preemption.

Oh my. I'm a bleeding heart liberal according to the test.

Liberal
Liberals…

* Are wary of American arrogance and hypocrisy
* Trace much of today's anti-American hatred to previous US foreign policies.
* Believe political solutions are inherently superior to military solutions
* Believe the US is morally bound to intervene in humanitarian crises
* Oppose American imperialism
* Support international law, alliances, and agreements
* Encourage US participation in the UN
* Believe US economic policies must help lift up the world's poor

Historical liberal: President Woodrow Wilson
Modern liberal: President Jimmy Carter

Originally posted by Langley:

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -3.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.51

I'm left of centre too but more on economics rather than social issues. Jazzswing is very slightly liberal on economics (-1.62) and very slightly conservative on social issues (0.31). Almost at the centre liao. This quiz is more oriented towards domestic issues. For a foreign policy quiz try this 'Are you a Neocon Quiz'.

http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/quiz/neoconQuiz.html

I'm a Kissingerian realist. Supporting containment but not preemption.

Kick Bush's ass!!

Langley, pls donot be rude. Getting into war with Iraq is an issue where there are conflicting ideologies involved. We should, however, be on guard to defend our land our country against any terrorism whom can destory our homes and families.

I would support our troops being sent into Iraq to rebuild it under a UN mandate.The tough questions will arrive when our troops are injured or worse sill , killed in operations where they are engaged in self-defence.Do we as a nation , have the collective guts to think of that scenario.I think such a force should only be volunteers and regulars only.It would be morally wrong to place NSFs in a position where they have no say, whatever the guiding principle.

Originally posted by LazerLordz:

I would support our troops being sent into Iraq to rebuild it under a UN mandate.The tough questions will arrive when our troops are injured or worse sill , killed in operations where they are engaged in self-defence.Do we as a nation , have the collective guts to think of that scenario.I think such a force should only be volunteers and regulars only.It would be morally wrong to place NSFs in a position where they have no say, whatever the guiding principle.

Since when soldiers have a say in where they go?

In war movies when they ask for volunteers for dangerous missions. Band of Brothers got 1 scene liddat towards the end when they supposed to capture a prisoner. Kamikaze pilots were also volunteers. But of course, if there ain’t any volunteers…

Originally posted by Langley:

Invading Iraq has made the world a more dangerous place yes, because it has created a new Afghanistan. A symbol of 'injustice' that has become a powerful rallying call for jihad. The world can fuck Bush and his neo-cons for all they want but they must realise this: Once Iraq descends into anarchy, Al-Qaeda will transform Iraq into a full-fledged Afghanistan. Then, it'll not only have symbolic value like now. It'll also have functional value with training camps, radical Islamic govt etc. Al-Qaeda knows this and this is exactly why they're doing all they can to get the US out.

Yes, Bush is probably wrong to go in there but since he's there now, there's no turning back. We cannot afford to fail in Iraq. While we criticise the US for its arrogance, we must acknowledge the importance of the task they are doing there now and give them support for it. Otherwise, it'll be a case of deja vu all over again.
Afghanistan Reloaded.

I have no doubt of this fact, nor do I wish for the US to pullout or to lose in Iraq. The consequences of that would be terrible for the world. Neither am I interested in "I told you so" to the pro-war gallery.

But that is the exact reason why I'm pissed to death of the actions of the Americans. Yes, Saddam had to go, but surely that could be waited till Al-Qaeda was weakened even further. At the very least, with Saddam in charge, no way in hell Al-Qaeda would run wild in Iraq.

But take a look at current US actions in Iraq. Is it working towards that end which it claims to be working towards? It is playing favourites and sidelining groups who MUST have a say in the process of nation-building in Iraq. They must work with people like Ayatollah al-Sistani (to sideline Sadr) in Southern Iraq and even the Sunni groups who fervently resist them in places like Falluja and Ramadi. And no most of them are not Al-Qaeda, they just do not want to be marginalized in the new Iraq and American actions are doing precisely that.

Winning the peace in Iraq will not be accomplished by M1A2s, JDAMs and bullets. It will be won by Bush first admitting he was wrong to invade, to put a truly representative Iraqi government in place and cedeing control of Iraq to the UN with American troops serving under a UN banner. The UN has many faults, but at the very least, it is a lot more of an honest broker than the Americans.

And one last thing, get the "contractors" out of Iraq. If one looks deeper into these, they would realise these people are operating out of American civil and military law, as well as local Iraqi law. Legalized banditry in other words.

Originally posted by Jazzswing:

Yeah, since Bush has already launched the war..no use going by hindsight.. or "i-told-you-so" (no offence). Let's help..(or at least hope) that the US can do their job in rebuilding Iraq..coz if they fail..it's the future of the Iraq and their people thats in jeopady. (and Bush's credibility of course).

Bush has not one scrap of credibility. And neither does his Administration. They have shown no compunction to lie, deceive, manipulate and cheat the war for their own arrogant, narrow minded points of view. They have allowed themselves to be sidetracked from fighting the real terrorists for their own selfish interested (packaged as "American" interests) and made no small contributions to the dangerous state of the world today.

I think the WMD thing was used just to make a case for the war..but hey, if you look at the "ends justifying the means" point of view..at least there is some good of all of this.
[/quote]

The end does not always justify the means. This is one such case. As I've mentioned, theres a right way to do the right thing, and a wrong way to do the right thing.

[quote]
But what do you people think was the REAL reason behind the invasion anyway? I'm curious...oil?

Oil, American hegemony, money, a need to show their power, misplaced pride, misplaced sense of morals, all of the above.