NationStates Jolt Archive

The war in Iraq might be bad but we are winning. If it would have been my decision wether to go to war or not, I would have choosen not to as long as I could find no ties to Saddam and terrorists. BUT now that we are in the war we MUST stick to it for the simple fact that we cannot seem weak because if we retreat it will send the message attack us all you want will we do nothing. I look at it the same as Vietnam or Korea we probaly should not have been involved in those wars but since we did we should have stuck to them and finished them out.

The war in Iraq might be bad but we are winning. If it would have been my decision wether to go to war or not, I would have choosen not to as long as I could find no ties to Saddam and terrorists. BUT now that we are in the war we MUST stick to it for the simple fact that we cannot seem weak because if we retreat it will send the message attack us all you want will we do nothing. I look at it the same as Vietnam or Korea we probaly should not have been involved in those wars but since we did we should have stuck to them and finished them out.

Why? Were we attacked by Vietnamese terrorists since we gave up in Vietnam?

The war in Iraq might be bad but we are winning. If it would have been my decision wether to go to war or not, I would have choosen not to as long as I could find no ties to Saddam and terrorists. BUT now that we are in the war we MUST stick to it for the simple fact that we cannot seem weak because if we retreat it will send the message attack us all you want will we do nothing. I look at it the same as Vietnam or Korea we probaly should not have been involved in those wars but since we did we should have stuck to them and finished them out.
What was your PhD in again? I mean, that's what you claimed in CToaN's thread on educational levels.

Why? Were we attacked by Vietnamese terrorists since we gave up in Vietnam?

Specious argument. Irrelevant analogy.

Iraq was a mess from day one. At least they were honest about why they did Vietnam, even if it was a stupid war.

Why? Were we attacked by Vietnamese terrorists since we gave up in Vietnam?

No, but it made us look like quitters when we did.

Vietnam actually won that war, simply because they knew that country inside and out unlike the US did and that made up for the fact they had crappy weapons compared to helicopters, tanks, etc the US had.

The war in Iraq might be bad but we are winning. If it would have been my decision wether to go to war or not, I would have choosen not to as long as I could find no ties to Saddam and terrorists. BUT now that we are in the war we MUST stick to it for the simple fact that we cannot seem weak because if we retreat it will send the message attack us all you want will we do nothing. I look at it the same as Vietnam or Korea we probaly should not have been involved in those wars but since we did we should have stuck to them and finished them out.

What criteria are you using to judge that we're "winning"?

I agree with you that, having gone into Iraq, we have a duty to stick it out -- although not so that we don't seem "weak". Having initiated the chaos, it's up to us to try to fix it. What the outcome will be, I don't know. If Iraq does become a functioning democracy, it seems likely that it would reach a democratic decision to break up, as large portions of Iraq don't want to be part of Iraq at all: after all, the nation was invented by the British with a large-scale map and a ruler.

The Kurds want a state of their own, although that would severely piss off Turkey, a NATO member and key ally in the region. The Shi'ites in the south might well want to form their own state, or even decide to join up with Iran. That would create further problems in the area, not least because it would threaten to cut off the Sunnis from the Gulf. Then there's the issue of who gets what oil fields. This one is going to run and run. But I think you're right: the USA and the other coalition countries are beholden to pay for this in blood, sweat, tears, toil and cold hard cash for decades to come.

The war in Iraq might be bad but we are winning. If it would have been my decision wether to go to war or not, I would have choosen not to as long as I could find no ties to Saddam and terrorists. BUT now that we are in the war we MUST stick to it for the simple fact that we cannot seem weak because if we retreat it will send the message attack us all you want will we do nothing. I look at it the same as Vietnam or Korea we probaly should not have been involved in those wars but since we did we should have stuck to them and finished them out.
DAMN YOU ENOD

of course we have to stick to it, we cant leave the job half done. its bad enough that we invaded a country that has done nothing to us, had no plans to do anything to us and had no capability to do anything to us

we cant leave them worse off than they were when we went in.

we cant leave them worse off than they were when we went in.What if, though, we're continuing to make the situation worse simply by being there? There's an argument to be made that the situation there will never be stable as long as we're there because we're considered an occupying force. That's part of the reason I think that elections won't go through as planned in January (or if they do, they'll be a farce), and that Allawi will either become a Hussein-esque dictator, or will be dead the minute US troops leave, because he'll be considered a collaborator.

What if, though, we're continuing to make the situation worse simply by being there? There's an argument to be made that the situation there will never be stable as long as we're there because we're considered an occupying force. That's part of the reason I think that elections won't go through as planned in January (or if they do, they'll be a farce), and that Allawi will either become a Hussein-esque dictator, or will be dead the minute US troops leave, because he'll be considered a collaborator.

its too early to tell that.
we are an occupying force and the "government" of iraq is just a puppet.

we dont need to stay until the last terrorist is killed, but we need to make our very best effort to leave iraq with a workable system (even if it ends up being anti american, who could blame them)

sigh, i hate that mr bush has put us into this unwinnable situation.

I am very against the War on Iraq.
We never went in there for the right reasons. We invaded despite great opposition from other nations and the UN.
Now that we are tying to 'fix things up', we are doing more harm than good (even though our intentions may be good).
Plus, I think especially in this case, there was an alternative.
Our invasion is so hypocritical. How can we hope to 'free' the Iraqi people, whilst they continue to feel oppressed by our forces and make a mockery of any ideas of 'liberating' them. They're not liberated at all.

its too early to tell that.
we are an occupying force and the "government" of iraq is just a puppet.

we dont need to stay until the last terrorist is killed, but we need to make our very best effort to leave iraq with a workable system (even if it ends up being anti american, who could blame them)

sigh, i hate that mr bush has put us into this unwinnable situation.I agree that it's too early to tell for certain, but it's a very real possibility, wouldn't you say? And yes, it is an unwinnable situation, made all the worse because of the utter lack of necessity for it.

I believe the war in iraq was justified. Based on faulty information, Bush was led to believe, by our information agences as well as a half dozen other country information agencies that Hussein had WMD's and was tied directly with Al Qaeda.

We now know that this is false, but not to far from the truth. Liberals think about this, be very fair before you answer because i admitting faults ok. Both Kerry and Bush made the same decision based on the same information, now Kerry claims that Bush wont admit a mistake, however it was not Bush's mistake, it was the information agencies mistakes AND if it was Bush's mistake, Kerry made the same mistake because they both made the same case. The faulty information was inaccurate, but not far from the truth. We have proof that Hussein had the material compoenents, research labs, blue prints, schematics, everything needed to produce WMD's. Hussein own head of research who just made a book claimed that Hussein was waiting for the world to turn their focus away and when that happened, his secret weapon program would of commenced. This is indeed a imminent threat, because past history shows that Hussein is not afraid to use WMD's on anybody.

I admit that the war in iraq is rough, things dont exactly go to plan in war, that is why military officers are trained to improvise. We are in a dangerous situation, iraq is a war-torn land, however their options were to be war-torn or suffer mass genocide. The iraqi casualty rating is lower since Hussein was ousted. 300,000 mass graves found in past couple months alone, this is ten times worse then Somolia. Iraq is in the dead center of the middle east, dead center of terrorist territory, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, and many other terrorist supporting countries surrounding iraq, the insurgency was coming whether we liked it or not and its not exactly easy to secure the borders. The terrorists are getting desperate, they know that slowly but surely the majority of iraqi's are getting their resolve, they are beginning to believe that they can win, that is why they are targeting iraqi's more then the US now, they are targeting the national guard and security forces to break the growing morale, and its failing because everyday more and more iraqi's come to join the fight.

Kerry claims he can bring more allies to help us, of course he's referring to France and Germany. He called the allies we already have "the bribed and coerced" and criticized and insulted the prime minister of iraq who's life is threatened several times A DAY to try and help our cause. He claims he can bring more allies while trash talking the ones we already have? He wants to bring in allies like France and Germany, these same governments who accepted blood money from Saddam Hussein in the oil for food program scandal. Talk about the bribed and coerced, even if we could get the French's help i wouldnt want it, because then our troops would have to watch the terrorists in front of them and then watch their backs to see if the French arent running or shooting them in the back, because they seem to already be great at that politically speaking.

The North Koreans refuse to deal with the Bush administration and are waiting for the elections to be over in hope that "Kerry" will win. The communist "imminent threat" North Koreans are endorsing John Kerry in hopes that he will be less resolute and easier to deal with, in hopes that Kerry will be slack and lenient when in matters of nuclear weapons, there should be NO ROOM for negotiating, even communist countries see a lack of resolve in John Kerry.

Bush is stubborn, but has a strong resolve, Kerry, i dont his position from one day to the next and if he has had one position the whole time, he's done a terrible job in clarifying it.

I believe the war in iraq was justified. Based on faulty information, Bush was led to believe, by our information agences as well as a half dozen other country information agencies that Hussein had WMD's and was tied directly with Al Qaeda.

what? what the what?!!??!?

Specious argument. Irrelevant analogy.

No it isn't. It's the analogy used in the original post.

No, but it made us look like quitters when we did.

And of course you can't look like a quitter. I mean if it came to a choice between carpet bombing a city with a huge peaceful civilian population and looking like a quitter, I now where I'd be.

I'd say the US military should stay there under the administration of the iraqi council, although the iraqi council is a joke, or at the very least the administration of the UN. But more power should be given to the iraqis via the UN than directly via the US because the US is not trustable from an iraqi point of view.
The UN looks like a puppet of the US in their eye though, but I'm confident Kofi Annan can change that.

...Kerry more or less = Bush.
Everybody in the world knew Iraq had no WMD long before the war, except the US politicians. It is not about the WMD at all, it is about the oil.

I believe the war in iraq was justified. Based on faulty information, Bush was led to believe, by our information agences as well as a half dozen other country information agencies that Hussein had WMD's and was tied directly with Al Qaeda.

We now know that this is false, but not to far from the truth. Liberals think about this, be very fair before you answer because i admitting faults ok. Both Kerry and Bush made the same decision based on the same information, now Kerry claims that Bush wont admit a mistake, however it was not Bush's mistake, it was the information agencies mistakes AND if it was Bush's mistake, Kerry made the same mistake because they both made the same case. The faulty information was inaccurate, but not far from the truth. We have proof that Hussein had the material compoenents, research labs, blue prints, schematics, everything needed to produce WMD's. Hussein own head of research who just made a book claimed that Hussein was waiting for the world to turn their focus away and when that happened, his secret weapon program would of commenced. This is indeed a imminent threat, because past history shows that Hussein is not afraid to use WMD's on anybody.

I admit that the war in iraq is rough, things dont exactly go to plan in war, that is why military officers are trained to improvise. We are in a dangerous situation, iraq is a war-torn land, however their options were to be war-torn or suffer mass genocide. The iraqi casualty rating is lower since Hussein was ousted. 300,000 mass graves found in past couple months alone, this is ten times worse then Somolia. Iraq is in the dead center of the middle east, dead center of terrorist territory, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, and many other terrorist supporting countries surrounding iraq, the insurgency was coming whether we liked it or not and its not exactly easy to secure the borders. The terrorists are getting desperate, they know that slowly but surely the majority of iraqi's are getting their resolve, they are beginning to believe that they can win, that is why they are targeting iraqi's more then the US now, they are targeting the national guard and security forces to break the growing morale, and its failing because everyday more and more iraqi's come to join the fight.

Kerry claims he can bring more allies to help us, of course he's referring to France and Germany. He called the allies we already have "the bribed and coerced" and criticized and insulted the prime minister of iraq who's life is threatened several times A DAY to try and help our cause. He claims he can bring more allies while trash talking the ones we already have? He wants to bring in allies like France and Germany, these same governments who accepted blood money from Saddam Hussein in the oil for food program scandal. Talk about the bribed and coerced, even if we could get the French's help i wouldnt want it, because then our troops would have to watch the terrorists in front of them and then watch their backs to see if the French arent running or shooting them in the back, because they seem to already be great at that politically speaking.

The North Koreans refuse to deal with the Bush administration and are waiting for the elections to be over in hope that "Kerry" will win. The communist "imminent threat" North Koreans are endorsing John Kerry in hopes that he will be less resolute and easier to deal with, in hopes that Kerry will be slack and lenient when in matters of nuclear weapons, there should be NO ROOM for negotiating, even communist countries see a lack of resolve in John Kerry.

Bush is stubborn, but has a strong resolve, Kerry, i dont his position from one day to the next and if he has had one position the whole time, he's done a terrible job in clarifying it.

Yes Kerry has trouble clarifying his message but Bush'es messaghe is wrose.
So you'd chose the known evil over the unknown good?
When did N. Korea endorse Kerry or is your opinion?
Halliburton got money same way France and Germany did and we trust them lol Seriously that is a good question...

. Liberals think about this, be very fair before you answer because i admitting faults ok. Both Kerry and Bush made the same decision based on the same information, now Kerry claims that Bush wont admit a mistake, however it was not Bush's mistake, it was the information agencies mistakes AND if it was Bush's mistake, Kerry made the same mistake because they both made the same case. The faulty information was inaccurate, but not far from the truth. We have proof that Hussein had the material compoenents, research labs, blue prints, schematics, everything needed to produce WMD's. Hussein own head of research who just made a book claimed that Hussein was waiting for the world to turn their focus away and when that happened, his secret weapon program would of commenced. This is indeed a imminent threat, because past history shows that Hussein is not afraid to use WMD's on anybody.
Name last time Saddam used WMDs.
Kerry made a mistake believing Bush yes. But Kerry wants to change that mistake, Bush wasnts to keep going.
If I fall into the ditch should I dig my way fown till I'm out? Bush says yes.
We didn't have proof we faked that.
Saddam's scientist were paid to tell us info, most people would lie for money.
Saddam wasn't a imminent threat. Past history shows Bush is a bad leader ie baseball team.

What was your PhD in again? I mean, that's what you claimed in CToaN's thread on educational levels.

Yes Enodscopia, I too would be very interested to know what your alleged Ph.D was in as well?

I'd say the US military should stay there under the administration of the iraqi council, although the iraqi council is a joke, or at the very least the administration of the UN. But more power should be given to the iraqis via the UN than directly via the US because the US is not trustable from an iraqi point of view.
The UN looks like a puppet of the US in their eye though, but I'm confident Kofi Annan can change that.

Um ... and just when did you poll the Iraqi people on this revelation?

Um ... and just when did you poll the Iraqi people on this revelation?

I believe the last poll done on Iraqi's was 55% wanted the Americans out and believed they were worse off now then before the invasion. Now, mind you that poll was conducted before the shit really hit the fan, no poll has been conducted since then as it's become far to dangerous to move around Iraq at all, for any one.

Kerry more or less = Bush.
Everybody in the world knew Iraq had no WMD long before the war, except the US politicians. It is not about the WMD at all, it is about the oil.

I've come to the conclusion that they def. knew, because who would be stupid enough to attack a country with WMD with a 45 min launching time? That's why North Korea wont be attacked, even when they declare that they have nukes..

Probably the enticing thought of establishing a secular democracy in the middle east was just too much for the US and UK, and that led them to a great degree of wishful thinking as regards WMD intelligence.

I don't think the hawks that pushed the war ever really did so out of fear of terrorists arming themselves with WMD from Iraq, but rather as part of an overall geo-politcal strategy. The seeming rewards of a stable democratic iraq probably got the better of their judgment.

And in some respects Iraq was the ideal place for the neo-con vision. Ostensibly Iraq was already secular inasmuch as the theocratic elements that gained control in the other parts of the middle east had been traditionally supressed by the regime. Therefore Iraqi's were not ingrained with, and possibly completely opposed to, the notion of fundamentalist theocratic rule. Iraqi women also traditionally enjoyed greater freedoms - in some respects - than their counterparts in many of the surrounding countries. Therefore the iraqi population probably would have an easier time in accepting the western notion of women's sufferage, woman politicians and general equality under the law. All things being equal therefore, it probably seemed that Iraq would be the easiest country in the middle east to democratize.

Once the social and political factors that made Iraq such an apparently easy region for this type of action are viewed in the light of its geographic location, then I would imagine the potential rewards the neo-cons imagined caused them to throw caution to the wind. Iraq's location and US/UK force deployments made it an easy country to invade - possible the easiest belligerent in the region. Much easier than say, Iran, given the location of key arab allies such as kuwait and oman. Also the mixed population, kurds, sunni arabs, shiites etc. made it an ideal place to set up such an examplar state given that, if it were sucessful, cross boarder ties between the various ethnic groups would apply pressure to many of the regions other nations to extend political freedoms to its citzens. After all imagine the effect a stable democratic and wealthy rebuilt iraq would have on the states around it. In theory it could serve as an example to the arabs in Saudi Kuwait and syria, the iranians and kurdish elements in Turkey - although the latter may not be welcomed by Istanbul.

And even if a democratic iraq did not cause the winds of democracy to sweep through the region, at the worst a stable democratic Iraq as a pro-US ally (naturally grateful for the US "liberating" it) would, because of its central position in the middle-east proove itself to be a great bulwark against other middle east belligerents. The US would get bases near the border of Syria and Iran. Naturally, then, Syria and Iran would have to devote more of their attention towards what was happening on their borders rather than plotting to destablize the rest of the world - or at least anhilate isreal.

Finally a successful result in iraq would have two important psychological effects upon the leadership of other middle eastern states. First it would serve as an object lesson. Don't piss the US off or else we'll come in destroy your army and have your own people execute welcome us as liberators and execute you. Second, it clearly seizes the iniative from those undeclared belligerants in the region.

Given all that, the powers that be probably thought that whether or not WMDs were ever found, by that point the rewards would have been so great that no-one - at least serious person - would complain. Sort of a case of alls well that ends well.

Looked at from that perspective it probably seemed to good not to do. If everything had panned out that way then, in one fell swoop the middle east would be effectively neutralized as an effective threat to the US and probably more stable than any time since before world war two.

Of course all of this is based upon a lack of insight and faulty reasoning - not that the anti-war lobby articulated any rational opposition to the war other than "faulty intelligence," "murdering babies," "no blood for oil." etc. (Actually blood for oil is at base a good argument highlighting the hypocracy of the whole thing, but standing naked in the street with badly made stage props chanting it like mental patients doesn't really get the point across.)

Fundamentally, policy makers overlooked several factors in their analysis of any occupation effort in the region. Most notably is the almost insane nationlism the middle easterners seem to feel towards their made up countries. During the Iran/Iraq war the Iraqi shiites remained loyal to baghdad for the most part, even when it was clearly not in their best interest to do so. Why anyone imagined any iraqi would look upon being invaded as a blessing is beyond me. They never have in the past. Also the notion that because Iraq had traditionally had a secular character then theocracy would not raise its ugly head was misplaced. Iraq's secular character was achieved through repression of the religous majority so naturally the first thing that happeded when the occupying forces lifted restrictions upon freedom of religious practice was a sudden upswell in religous fervor. Given that the oppressed group was the Shiites, who tradtionally view the US as the great satan, the outcome was all too predictable.

When this nationalistic/religous tendency of the population, is coupled to its willingness to absorb casualties - as in the iran/iraq war - and considered, then the problems facing us today should have been all to obvious. The iraqi's have shown repeatedly, that while the are no good as a fighting force in a conventional sense - they are quickly overrun and rendered ineffective by a well trained and equipped military - as an insurgency they are a potent force. As an insurgency only the fanatics are effectively operating, so there is no unwilling conscript problem, and as such even suffering literally thousands of casualties will in no way deter them wheras the US is extremely casualty sensitive. From the insurgents point of view if a hundred die to get one or two US troops then its worth it. At the same time the majority of the non-insurgent part of the population, for reasons of nationalism etc, probably at least tacitly support the insurgents, if not give outright aid. Bottom line, they don't want us there and they are prepared to die to get us out. We on the other hand, mostly, do not value any strategic aim in that theater highly enough to absorb massive casualties. After all, even if all of the neo-con goals could be ultimatley realised I'm not sure we are prepared to sacrifice 30,000 troops to do it.


I'm fairly confident that before the USSR entered Afganistan they made a similar miscalculation. (At that time afganistan was a puporedly left leaning secular democracy and had women's rights ect.) To the politburo it would probably have seemed like it was going to be a quick and easy scuffle against a few Carter funded religous fanatics, leading to the installation of a pro warsaw government in an already left leaning state. Naturally most afgans would either be disinterested or grateful that the soviet union had saved their left leaning state, welcome it as allies and go on to be part of a the new afgan soviet satrapy which would then help destablize the pro-west (at that time) Pakistan. I'm sure they never imagined that millions of ill-trained and poorly afgans would be prepared to die in sometimes futile attacks against modern heavy weapons. But at the end of the day that's what happened and the soviets were forced to go home with their tails between their legs. Arguably the Muhajadeen did as much to speed the end of communism as anything. The shocking thing is that no-one seems to remember that. Of course the USSR was allegedly much more brutal than the US/UK which no doubt made things worse, but the same principle, I think, applies.

Frankly, the whole thing is a mess. Still at least as long as US troops are in Iraq they are doing a good job as a straw man attracting terrorists from all over the world to go fight them there rather than on US soil. They will, however, figure that out eventually. The other thing is, from a very cynical point of view, US troop casualties disprove the widely held belief that the US is not capable of sustaining extended deployments because of sensitivity to losses. In other words western society is not quiet as effeminate and as decadent as extreme muslim factions try to paint it.

I imagine, that to get anything like a "good" result the US will have to be in theater for around 10-15 years. This is just a guess based upon the Malaysian Emergency in the 1940-50s however, and this is by no means certain. If, for example, china starts to covertly arm insurgents then it could devolve into another afganistan. ( I know this could cause problems for china with its biggest trading partner, but china is constantly expanding its markets and it may be able to make up some slack with increased exports to devolping markets and through increased trade with blocks like the EU who are fundamently opposed to the Iraq conflict. In any case, the consequent diminution of trade may be viewed as an acceptable set-off if it occurs concurrently with a reduction in overall US influence worldwide, especially if China's position is resultingly strengthened regarding re-unification with Taiwan.) And even if china remains aloof, there are certainly plenty of muslim states that may choose to succor the insurgency. Either of those possibilities is terrible.

Realistically though, the US has to remain in Iraq. Eventually, provided the insurgents do not recieve a great deal of aid from another state, then Iraq will become a democracy - just through habit if nothing else. A vietnam style withdrawl at this point would be a disaster for US prestige however, and renew hopes amongst terrorists that more mainland attacks would signifigantly alter US foreign policy. Imagine the jubilation for islamic extremists if they actually forced a premature US withdrawl. It would tend to indicate that US is not capable of effectively prosecuting extended operations and thus diminish fear of reprisals for sponsoring states. Even though Iraq may not have had much to do with terrorism per se, failure there still sends a message to states that do. The only probably outcome of such a withdrawl is therefore a renewed terror campaign on US soil.

On the other hand we could just let the insurgents win, abandon isreal, ans say we are really, really sorry. That would probably hold them for a decade or two.

Well those are my thoughts on the war.

How do I vote for this guy? Lacadaemon for president!

Yes Enodscopia, I too would be very interested to know what your alleged Ph.D was in as well?

Probably not a PhD. He's probably either a 12 year old or studying for a degree in some bum subject like Philosophy.

i notice alot of you all out there are sayin "We did this" and "were that" :headbang: leading me to believe that your all,for the most part,yanks..(so clever) ... ;) ... as we all know america has alot of variants when it comes to honest to goodness facts.even if you all believe even half what your led to believe by your media your oppionions will end up as maybe 5% fact...If you were to judge your actions using an outsiders viewpoint i believe the general concensus is that u.s.a were not justfied,they should leave now before they are irrovocably integrated into iraq's system(once reached leaving would be desastrus) and that the main ob. behind the war is oil...black fluidic gold....................

at least we now know what price a human life can be bought and sold for. :mp5: :sniper: :gundge:

Why? Were we attacked by Vietnamese terrorists since we gave up in Vietnam?


is that South Korea would not fight for themselves. This could be a problem in Iraq as well.

Probably the enticing thought of establishing a secular democracy in the middle east was just too much for the US and UK, and that led them to a great degree of wishful thinking as regards WMD intelligence.

I don't think the hawks that pushed the war ever really did so out of fear of terrorists arming themselves with WMD from Iraq, but rather as part of an overall geo-politcal strategy. The seeming rewards of a stable democratic iraq probably got the better of their judgment.

And in some respects Iraq was the ideal place for the neo-con vision. Ostensibly Iraq was already secular inasmuch as the theocratic elements that gained control in the other parts of the middle east had been traditionally supressed by the regime. Therefore Iraqi's were not ingrained with, and possibly completely opposed to, the notion of fundamentalist theocratic rule. Iraqi women also traditionally enjoyed greater freedoms - in some respects - than their counterparts in many of the surrounding countries. Therefore the iraqi population probably would have an easier time in accepting the western notion of women's sufferage, woman politicians and general equality under the law. All things being equal therefore, it probably seemed that Iraq would be the easiest country in the middle east to democratize.

Once the social and political factors that made Iraq such an apparently easy region for this type of action are viewed in the light of its geographic location, then I would imagine the potential rewards the neo-cons imagined caused them to throw caution to the wind. Iraq's location and US/UK force deployments made it an easy country to invade - possible the easiest belligerent in the region. Much easier than say, Iran, given the location of key arab allies such as kuwait and oman. Also the mixed population, kurds, sunni arabs, shiites etc. made it an ideal place to set up such an examplar state given that, if it were sucessful, cross boarder ties between the various ethnic groups would apply pressure to many of the regions other nations to extend political freedoms to its citzens. After all imagine the effect a stable democratic and wealthy rebuilt iraq would have on the states around it. In theory it could serve as an example to the arabs in Saudi Kuwait and syria, the iranians and kurdish elements in Turkey - although the latter may not be welcomed by Istanbul.

And even if a democratic iraq did not cause the winds of democracy to sweep through the region, at the worst a stable democratic Iraq as a pro-US ally (naturally grateful for the US "liberating" it) would, because of its central position in the middle-east proove itself to be a great bulwark against other middle east belligerents. The US would get bases near the border of Syria and Iran. Naturally, then, Syria and Iran would have to devote more of their attention towards what was happening on their borders rather than plotting to destablize the rest of the world - or at least anhilate isreal.

Finally a successful result in iraq would have two important psychological effects upon the leadership of other middle eastern states. First it would serve as an object lesson. Don't piss the US off or else we'll come in destroy your army and have your own people execute welcome us as liberators and execute you. Second, it clearly seizes the iniative from those undeclared belligerants in the region.

Given all that, the powers that be probably thought that whether or not WMDs were ever found, by that point the rewards would have been so great that no-one - at least serious person - would complain. Sort of a case of alls well that ends well.

Looked at from that perspective it probably seemed to good not to do. If everything had panned out that way then, in one fell swoop the middle east would be effectively neutralized as an effective threat to the US and probably more stable than any time since before world war two.
I agree with the latest part of you post, but not with this one.
I think it was not about democracy, but about capitalism and free market. Democracy was never something they considered. Democracy does not exist. They thought about an iraqi council which would be elected and which would be pro free-market and pro-capitalism, no matter what the people would elect.
The aim would have been to buy Iraq, especially the oil fields in order to colonialize it.
Secular was not an issue either. The US would accept an islamic state so long as it is pro-free market and pro-capitalist.

I'm not suggesting that you'd get a democracy, I am saying thats what neo-cons hoped for. And I think, given their rhetoric, its almost certain they did.

And don't think for a second I believe they wanted a secular democracy for the sake of human rights. I suggesting the plan was to create a destabalizing counter islamic tendency in the area. Face it, an islamic state is never going to support the US really. At the most, it would be like Pakistan of Saudi where, apart from a tiny ruling elite, the vast majority of the population despises the US and the west. Almost anyone can see that. As far as long term strategic goals are concerned there is no point in doing that.

If all that was a stake here was iraq's oil, diplomatic presure could have secured the supply and iraq was selling its oil eagerly and cheaply anyway. On the other hand there is, if you follow neo-con logic, a good chance that by creating a pro-US secular democracy as an examplar nation, there is a good chance of destabalizing the whole of OPEC and in the long, run that really has always been the aim of US policy in the region. Also an secular pro-US democracy, would also be pro-isreal - another bonus to the right.

As to the capatalist part, your right. Naturally any govenrment established in Iraq would have been strongly pro-free trade, and free market capitalism. But that is because neo-cons base a lot of their assumptions about society on the work of Milton Freedman and Hayek. They therefore believe its is impossible to have a true democracy without a capatalist economy.

Finally, I think you make the mistake of many in the anti-war movement who view the neo-cons too simplistically as robber barons. A lot of them actually do believe in the whole secular/captalist/democracy triad as the ideal government. If you read neo-con literature, you'll find that they believe that if every state in the world was a true capitalist deomcracy, there would be no more war and everyone would love the free trading US. We'd also all be richer and happier. From a neo-con perspective, adventuring in Iraq furthers these aims.

The anti war movement in the US failed because it could not really grasp the motivations and philosophy of the right wing hawks. As such it was left chanting irrelevant phrases and making ludicrous statements. Naturally the invasion of iraq was about more than just lining the pockets of a few US companies. Micheal Moore has already made more off the iraq conflict than Haliburton. Yes, at the base of all this it is about economics in the sense that the middle east overall is an important economic region - I mean, if this was Africa no-one would give a shit - but it was always about more than an act of piracy.

If all the US had wanted was to invade an oil rich nation and regulize an oil supply, it would have gone peace-keeping in venezula two and a half years ago. Had those protesting against the War grasped this they could have focused upon why, inevitably, Iraq would be as screwed up as it is and the possible ramifications of such US actions. Instead they ended up sounding like a bunch of losers protesting globalization at a WTO meeting, and lost all credibility with the majority of the US public. The anti-war rhetoric prior to Iraq in the US was just a pathetic stereotype of the worst elements of disaffected counter culture and made all the more ridiculous by its ridiculous claims. Running round screaming that Bush is an evil robber baron who is prepared to rape Iraq for its wealth blah blah blah and constantly yammering on about evil capatalism just made the anti-war people look silly. More importantly, it also distracted the public from the more imporant issue of why, strategically, the war would probably be, at least in the short term (5yrs +), a failure. It also distracted from any substansive debate about the level of casualties and required commitment from the US needed to conclude operations in the theater. Had those issues been thoroughly hashed out I believe that, politically, it would have been much more difficult to invade and Bush would have lost much of his popular support in the US at the time. He also would have been in far more trouble regarding re-election because anti war critics could have said I told you so. As it was, the public only really got one side of the story about what would happen after the invasion while the anti-war advocates just kept banging on about how cynical and evil Bush/Cheney were. If they had spent more time trying to understand the motivations behind Bush's actions - or at any rate Bush's advisors actions - and really tried to address the bona fide issues - then thing might of turned out differently. As it is they just self-indulgently cast the whole matter as one of Bush=Robber Barron , anti war people = Ghandi, and globalism and capitalism = Fascism. No wonder no-one pays attention. I understand that the left hates Bush for whatever reason, but these charactures of him as some kind of crypto-facist leader don't help the substantive debate. I actually think that Bush and his buddies really believe what they are doing is the right thing as regards stability and suppressing Islamic terrorism, they are just out of their depth. (And consider this, why did the UK support the US so staunchly in the whole thing, I think Blair bought into the neo-con big picture, he had no other reason to back the US so eagerly.)

And if I see one more fucking woman, stripping for this, being naked for that, or having a "hug in" or whatever I swear I will slap her. The self indulgent actions of the anti-war movement have really impeded the course deliberative democracy over the war's issues in this country. In the long run, the mess in Iraq is just as much the fault of the smug behaviour of the left as it is the myopia of the right.

of course we have to stick to it, we cant leave the job half done.
Like in Afghanistan.....

...You are probably right.
The Neo-con culture is difficult to grasp from here (Europe). I think it was a big misunderstanding from both sides though.
We didn't understand their motives and they turned a deaf ear at any critizism coming from the "old Europe".

The war in Iraq might be bad but we are winning.
Winning? Really? Let me quote today's newspaper (not written in English, all the bad spelling and wrong words is due my bad English)
The resistance is strenghtening and anti-american ideology is spreading in the whole area. (Colin Powell in ABC last weekend, I'm sure you'll be able to find this)
US troops has the control (in Baghdad) only in the international airport and the little green zone in the central Baghdad. They don't have any other bases in the city any more.
Fallujah has declared an islamistic rebublic and the people are ruled under the sharia-law.
US troop haven't been able to train Iraqi troops as planned.
US troops have to face (average in august) 87 armed attacks daily.
etcetc
sources ABC, AFP, Arab News, The Christian Science Monitor, LA Times, NBC, Newsweek, New York Times, Reuters, Washington Post and few professors.