EPA

How much longer will this war last? Vote away?

Confed999

5-10 years before the troops are home, is what was said before it started.

__________________
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

Jonathan Locke

With Bush still in the lead, this war could go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on................................................ .................................... and if VVV's predictions for the year 2050 are right, then the Bush Imperial Family of America will re-spark it once again

__________________
Remember, the enemy gate is down- Andrew ¨Ender¨ Wiggin

Confed999

Huh?

Jonathan Locke

i meant lead as in President (is that what u were asking?)

Confed999

Ok, I get it. But I don't think anyone else would do it faster.

Jonathan Locke

You mean finish the war faster?

Confed999

Yes.

Jonathan Locke

Well the war itself was announced over months ago wasnt it?

Confed999

Technically the war against the armies and government of Iraq are over. Just like every other war though, there is still alot of work to be done.

Jonathan Locke

Okay now that we r on the same page. I am going to extend my previous argument, i think that Bush is going to extend this thing for as logn as Congress and the Media will let him before they oppose him (even thought most of the media already does), because it is not only helping out Iraq, but the US ultimately. All that talk about drilling in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge and tapping the Petrolleum Reserve was merely a fog, Bush can, will, and probably is getting oil from Iraq's wells. He isn't staying there for the restoration of Iraq, because if he was, he would already be done. He captured Sadam, destroyed his government, set up a new one, destroyed most of the guerrila and terrorist groups there in a couple of years, or less, and all he has to do now is stop some more terorist groups. I am amazed that even with all the troops he has there, he still cant manage to stop them.

Confed999

How long were we still fighting/rebuilding in Europe and Asia after WW2? It wouldn't allready be done, no matter who was in charge.

The oil argument is economically infeasable. Nobody is taking the oil, even though Saddam and others sold the wells and then nationalized them. I'm certain oil played a part in the minds of the legislature when they authorized the war, but it was just a part. If they really wanted the oil, sanctions would have been dropped.

Bluesman

I think you're confusing two things:

The Global War on Terror, and the Iraqi Campaign.

The GWoT will be here for years, that's true (although we sure have a GREAT trend going right now, and the successes have been so remarkable as to leave no doubt at all as to the ultimate outcome, and I think our timeline to victory is getting shorter with each passing day). But the Iraqi Campaign was a part of that bigger war, and we're still trying to give this government as good a shot at getting it together as we can.

I am amazed that you would be so unwise as to counsel an immediate withdrawal and cessation of operations in Iraq, when it was our abandonment of Afghanistan and our allowing it to lapse into 'failed state' status that got us into this whole mess in the first place.

REALLY, sir, it's not enough just to READ the history books. One should also try to perceive the lessons that they teach.

Here's one that you may research on your own, and see if you draw the same conclusion that George W. Bush did: "Democracies almost NEVER fight each other, and lead to more liberal, tolerant societies, generally at peace with their democratic neighbors."

Now, if you can agree to that premise, go further: apply it to Iraq, and ask yourself again whether the US should leave Iraq to its fate (after all, we got rid of a tyrant and his horrible regime, so we should be DONE, right?).

NOW - final exam time. Is President Bush unnecessisarily prolonging operations in Iraq for some nefarious purpose, like theft of its resources, or is it possibly because

WE'RE NOT DONE YET!

DAM', dude, we're trying to kick-start a democracy here with no foundation to build on, and we've been at it less than TWO YEARS! You wanna give us a bit of TIME, man?!?

__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell

Lucien LaCroix

The question is irrelevant. The only pertinent question is "What will come from this war?".

The length of a war is a purely political question. While war is a political tool, the only issue is outcome, not length. That is the question that so many people are afraid to confront. Will Iraq be free? Or will it simply be a country that teeters on the brink after we leave? Will they truly be free? Or will they be free based only upon our ability to temporarily hold the 'bad guys' at bay?

Never have I seen such a misguided abusive of American patriotism. I suppose that had I been politically informed (as a child) during the Vietnam War, I would have opposed our actions there as well...and, to a lesser extent, South Korea.

Yes, we 'succeeded' in South Korea. There are democratic. But are they democratic because of a 'victory' WE won--or are they democratic because we managed to hold our own in a limited war designed to minimize our efforts (and enemy damage) against the enemy versus actually winning the day? Fortunately, for us, that day and age ultimately required us to use whatever force necessary to be 'victorious.' The Red Chinese understood that and eventually realized their best option was to hope for a stalemate--followed by an eventual victory by them. We obliged, to the tune of several hundred billion dollars over the past 50+ years defending that nation. We bloodied the communists' noses, we occupied the nation we want to protect, and there it stands--it's that simple.

Vietnam...the epitomy of the American ideal for the quest for freedom and democracy. There's just one problem--the Vietnamese people didn't give two sh**ts about our notion as to how their country should function. That's not to say the Vietnam War was 'wrong.' We simply approached it with the same creeping mindset that a hollow political victory was a substitute to an outright military victory. We killed 56,000+ of our citizens to make such a insincere point. Was it worth it? The results speak for themselves.

Desert Storm...an exception. Saddam was stupid enough to deploy his forces in the open desert (eventually deserting the major cities). It was a crap shoot. We got an easy victory on behalf of a Kuwaitii dictatorship that would be far less friendly were it not for the greater evil of Saddam Hussein. And I predict that political opinions in that country will eventually articulate such a Muslim-oriented mindset now that Saddam is gone.

Finally, we have the current conflict in Iraq. Does it really matter how long we stay there? How long does it take to conquer 5000 years of cultural bias and beliefs? Do the Iraqis really understand the nature of what America sacrificed to give them what they now have? Or will it simply fall upon deaf ears the first time Muslim fundamentalist group tries to seize power after our depature?

How long will our efforts last in Iraq?

Answer: Just long enough to claim 'victory,' while attending to the role of a gardner who plants seeds and then neglects the crops.

__________________
"If I see further than other men, it is because I stand upon the shoulders of giants."

Ray

The war in Iraq is still on. The conventional warfare is over, but the unconventional warfare continues. The mission both political and military has not been accomplished since democracy as also peace and law and order is elusive.

Oil is an important factor since peak oil has been reached (it means the consumption is 4 barrels vs discovery of 1 barrel). The country that corners the oil corners the global economy since it can manipulate the oil output and prices. Another factor is that the OPEC was slowly converting its instrument to Euro which would damage the US economy. Thus, these countries had to be brought under the US tutelage.

The guerrilla warfare will continue and longer it continues, the situation will get worse. This is because the youth will be deprived of education and hence will be continuing to producing semi literates who will be total misfits in modern society and so would have to find solace amongst the terrorists.

As they rose in hierarchy, they would enjoy perks and privileges that they would otherwise be denied if peace and democracy came, being semi literates. Hence they will ensure that there is no peace as it serves their purpose if the situation is on fire.