What is the goal in Iraq?

That's the first question to ask both presidential candidates. You can't have a plan without a goal, and a goal is easy to state.

I think that question would be damning for Bush. The only remaining worthwhile goal is a stable, America-friendly democracy in the heart of the Middle East. Even a slick salesman like Bush can't sell that goal now. It is pie-in-the-sky. If that is Bush's goal in Iraq, we have clearly lost.

as fast as we can.

leaving the country to terrorists would be inhuman, we are stuck there now until the new government has control or Iraq is split in thirds among the Sunni's, Shia's and Kurds

and wait for Never-ever-land. It ain't gonna happen.

and occupation are not terrorists.

Bush says "A free Iraq" so many times on television he sounds like a record skipping, while Kerrey's stated goal sounds like a CD changer set to random

Without specifics, your complaint about Kerry sounds uninformed and shallow. How about using Kerry's actual words on this and explaining how you differ with his approach instead of repeating the opposition's sound bite? Kerry has been remarkably consistent in his approach given that he has almost no control over what Bush has done or will do there. I give our candidate great credit for having an intelligent view of the conflict and a substanitive strategy for dealing with it.

Kerry: Internationalize the effort there to reduce the sense of an American occupation. Allow an international coalition to assume authority over the election and relinquish control over assets, resources, and decision-making. Encourage an international security force like NATO to move in and protect the process.

may actually care about their troops.

if they are persuaded that our leader won't continue to provoke recriminations and muck it up. One thing I am convinced of, other countries view us now as a duplicitous bully. The election of Kerry should change their view and engender more confidence in the U.S. ability to provide leadership and reconcilliation. Also, we need to relinquish the decision making and control over the resources to a neutral body. Many who expressed a willingness to participate at the start just found themselves at the mercy of an obstinate muckraker in Bush. Kerry's leadership should provide the leadership and direction that will bring these countries back to the table.

But if we achieve that goal, we have lost the war -- at least as defined by the original goalposts.

I agree with your goal and I also agree with your eloquently stated post below. Because Bush is so internationally despised, he is a liability in achieving literally any goal (other than Bin Laden's).

However, even your modest goal rings unrealistic, and that is my point. We need to make the world realize that the war is lost. Bush is trying to shift the goal posts.

On edit: Changed wording from "is realistic" to "rings unrealistic"

We have to deal with the reality on the ground which even Kerry has acknowledged may spiral beyond our control. We can scarcely hope to repair the damage we have done there, but we must try, even if it takes the efforts of generations. The alternative, I fear, will be even more devastating than our own blundering imperialism. It won't be easy.

edit: I've got to sleep. Thanks for the discussion

You are now un-American if you speak out against the Commander in Chief, during time of war. Hail Bush, Hail to the Chief. He fears no evil. Bring them on. Dead or alive. We're turning the corner.

Please fill in the blank,

Bush is the worse President in the last ____ years.

The goal is domination of the last cheap oil, second to Saudi Arabia.



Next the establishment of 14 bases for 150,000 soldiers to dominate the region.

There is also the religious factor, Christians against Muslims in a Holy war. Pushing the rapture.

Personal profit,Chaney has 300,00 shares of Haliburton stock options. Many others are stealing bigtime because there is no accounting.

Bush pays off Israel.

The model supply side economy. The new government is handcuffed on this.

Its a showcase for conservative values.

And of course Bush thinks all is well.

then the debate begins as to what that is.

unfortunately for the dead, wounded, and desolated, the iraq invasion is really just a tactical application of bush's US strategic policy.

when one is asked what one would do in iraq, there is no way to explain it unless in context to an overall strategy for making the US safer.

as much as "what one would do in iraq," one should be asking "Why one would do it."

it is in this that bush's war should be attacked as a defective part of a further defective strategic policy that has made the US less safe than ever.

#1 March into Iraq. Secure the oil pipelines. Start oil flowing. Let Halliburton make the oil revenue.

#2 Set up several bases so we can keep an eye on the rest of the Middle East. Make sure to intimidate the rest of them so they know we mean business. Get our troops out of Saudi Arabia which was becoming a dangerous situation.

#3 Don't let anyone know this. Instead, say we're going to install democracy, we'll have free elections in January, and everything will be awesome.

"Ya know... I, what I mean is...we, we, bring em on! Hafta give em freedom. Freedom and democratisiazation. So we will be safer. A safer... us and them. We need to be safe from terrists. Lemme put it this way... I, uh, we hafta get em. To be safe. Heh. They hate us for our freedom. We will kill them and our freedom. It will all work out.. you'll see. (bouncy-bouncy) Heh."

That's some might good Bush channeling!!

and it seems the bush administration is just letting it implode even worse in their cruise up to November 2, which is DISGUSTING.

People need to be shouting from the rooftops "WHAT IS GOING ON IN IRAQ??? AND WHY????"

No realistic, stated goals. Just puffery.

And Bush is just letting Iraq go straight to hell right now because he doesn't want to have casualties before the election.

What do you call a president who adapts the prosecution of a war to suit his own political needs? Seriously, I don't know.

Well, actually, the problem from the beginning was going there in the first place.

But there was never a clear goal. First it was because Saddam was a threat to us. That would indicate a goal of subjugation, of beating an enemy.

Then it morphed into a goal of "liberation". This would indicate a tactic of support and assistance but when we already had the first goal of rooting out weapons of mass destruction, those goals ran counter to each other.

Now there's a mess and the guys on the ground have no clear goal at all beyond survival in a country laced with guerrilla fighters using tactics of terror - very difficult to counter.

History teaches us over and over that when there is confusion at the top, there is even more at the bottom. When the people in charge can articulate no clear goal, there is going to be chaos, confusion, contradictory orders and tactics - in short, pandemonium. This is a Micky Mouse operation and our guys are getting their asses shot off because someone (and we all know who) thinks he's a "war president".

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

it must tear you up inside to have to support the Coward from Crawford.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

then to draft young, worthless suckers who are too expensive to hire, but too cheap to pay taxes protecting our military contracts and excessive oil prices from Iraqi freedom fighters and a free market. :smoke: