Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Pretty lame considering his policies and cabinate indicate he is no better than Bush.

Every time I listen to Obama I get the awe inspiring sense that he is Sir Humphrey Appleby reborn.
He says alot in high retoric and big words that takes a long time when all he has to say is...

I'll look to the US first.
We are getting the hell out of Iraq.
Mess with us and we'll kick your ass.

Which is how Bush would have said the speech.

I think African Americans have a big shock in store if they think Obama is going to help them out.

He needs white voters to get him back next election. Give too much via affirmative action and trouble will be brewing. And the whites can now say 'why do you need affirmative action if an african american can become president?'. Even though Obama's life has been about as unrepresentative of african american life as you can get....

As others have said he tries not to make race an issue, and I'll think he'll continue to do so which will be off putting for the african american community, but will placate the white community.

No matter what the media (who've backed him as the golden child since the race began) say he's still a polititian and politicians chase votes.

Grignard wrote: I didn't vote for him, in fact, I didn't vote at all,

For someone whp doesn't excercise their right to vote you sure have a lot to say about politics.

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:I think African Americans have a big shock in store if they think Obama is going to help them out.

I'm interested, say he was to help african americans out, exactly which part of society would he be helping out? Do they just fit into one neat category?

Frazzled wrote:We'll see.

OT but hate Bush as much as you want, but remember, his approval ratings are still higher than Congress...

Everything has higher approvals ratings than congress. But no-one votes for congress, they vote for their representative, almost all of whom have approval rating 30 and 40% better than congress or Bush.

Polonius wrote:That's not surprising. I think everybody has reason to disapprove of the current congress. In general, I think congresses will get lower approval ratings, both for the reason that the people who support the majority may still disapprove (while the "base" of a president seldom disapproves), and because Congress is a body built on gutless compromise and exchanges of favors, while the president simply makes decisions. Supporting the President, even in times of mild disapproval is also inherently patriotic, as he is still the head of state and government, and deals with foreign powers, etc. Congress is made up of politicians and whack jobs, and pretty consistently pisses people off. I say this as a resident of the Ohio 10th District, home of Dennis Kucinich. I voted for the guy, and I disapprove of his performance....

Yeah, but like I said above to Fraz, asking about the approval ratings of congress is asking about the approval ratings of politicians. Of course people are going to disapprove. Asking about the approval ratings of people's individual members of congress and almost all score higher than Bush, and by quite a margin.

The real test for Bush's numbers will be to see if he is vindicated, Truman style by history. Personally, I think he has a Jimmy Carter type future: an unpopular president who can reform his image as a respected statesman. Nobody will ever look back fondly to the Carter era, but they shared the common trait of sticking to their guns and being men of deep faith and moral conviction. Personally, I think if the two men switched positions, the world could have been a better place.

The idea that some people have been vindicated by the long view of history doesn't mean have to throw our hands up and pretend it's all too hard to have an opinion right now. Some folk took tough choices in difficult times, and were vindicated. Other folk failed upwards through a variety of poorly managed ventures, until they stumbled into the presidency, then took the country into a pointless war, argued for torture, illegally detained innocent people, and did nothing as the country headed into financial meltdown.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say history won't be kind. And maybe he'll go on and do something useful with his life, like Carter did. But that'd be a reversal of form from his life up to this point.

Bush probably won't be vindicated, but someone will take a hard look at what he focused on and his successes, and they'll realize some truths the current media has no interest in. In 5 years, some enterprising political historian is going to dispassionately evaluate Bush's incredible contribution to the fight against AIDS in Africa, tripling US funding towards treatment...a decision that will eventually save MILLIONS. They'll consider what Iraq looks like in 5 years, almost certainly better than it looked 6 years ago, and they'll realize that after a very rocky start, and certainly with all of the tribulations that accompany a war, the result is a better Iraq. Perhaps, with a second President post-9/11, they'll consider that Bush focused on security over all, and that it wasn't all fascist propaganda. That perhaps such difficult decisions were made in good conscience, with noble intentions.

We don't know. The modern media has their head stuck up their ***, and are drinking their own bathwater. I doubt he'll be seen as a misunderstood leader extraordinaire. He might be seen as a decent man overwhelmed by a crisis beyond what even President Obama potentially faces.

And maybe he'll just be seen as a total failure.

Remember...the media is NOT the historical record.

So let's wait and see.

As for the Inauguration today, very special. A great moment in US history. More thoughts on that tomorrow.

But let's let Fmr President Bush go for a while, and check back. Some are ready to write that book. I'd wager they don't know the whole story yet. I don't, and I'm paying attention.

dienekes96 wrote:The modern media has their head stuck up their ***, and are drinking their own bathwater. .

I'd rather drink my own bathwater than somebody else's. Just sayin.

They'll consider what Iraq looks like in 5 years, almost certainly better than it looked 6 years ago, a

Considering large areas are still without power or running water after five years I think you're pretty well wrong about this one. More people died under our occupation then would have died under Sadaam by an enormous margin, and there is nothing to point to the government that will take over as being any better than he was. Iraq is and will be a failure of an unheard of magnitude. It was poorly conceived, poorly executed, and will be left on the verge of a sectarian civil war. The surge only served to make a few cities safe, it has done little to quell the feelings of bitterness and the ambition of the sectarian groups that have not gone away. Thinking we're going to leave iraq better then it was before is like thinking Isreal just kicked the crap out of hamass and left nothing but flowers and happiness in its wake. It's delusional.

Every time I listen to Obama I get the awe inspiring sense that he is Sir Humphrey Appleby reborn.
He says alot in high retoric and big words that takes a long time when all he has to say is...

I'll look to the US first.
We are getting the hell out of Iraq.
Mess with us and we'll kick your ass.

Which is how Bush would have said the speech.

Eloquence must be hard for you. If you want I can condense all of his speeches and type them into a speak and spell so you can keep it with you.

dienekes96 wrote:Bush probably won't be vindicated, but someone will take a hard look at what he focused on and his successes, and they'll realize some truths the current media has no interest in. In 5 years, some enterprising political historian is going to dispassionately evaluate Bush's incredible contribution to the fight against AIDS in Africa, tripling US funding towards treatment...a decision that will eventually save MILLIONS.

I agree wholeheartedly. In fact I wouldn't mind authoring that book, even if only to get under the skin of my alma mater.

Not to mention position us to contest Chinese activities on the continent. Now if only we could patch things up with Qadafi...

dienekes96 wrote:
They'll consider what Iraq looks like in 5 years, almost certainly better than it looked 6 years ago, and they'll realize that after a very rocky start, and certainly with all of the tribulations that accompany a war, the result is a better Iraq. Perhaps, with a second President post-9/11, they'll consider that Bush focused on security over all, and that it wasn't all fascist propaganda. That perhaps such difficult decisions were made in good conscience, with noble intentions.

I've actually already seen some pretty good critiques by guys like Philip Bobbet (Bobbit?) who say that his biggest failing was being unwilling to really push for a system of legal detention outside of the Geneva Conventions. Interesting stuff, though it only sees publication in the likes of the Hoover Journal.

dienekes96 wrote:
We don't know. The modern media has their head stuck up their ***, and are drinking their own bathwater. I doubt he'll be seen as a misunderstood leader extraordinaire. He might be seen as a decent man overwhelmed by a crisis beyond what even President Obama potentially faces.

Personally, I think he'll be the Republican Carter. Though I'm not sure he'll be able to acquire redemption so quickly, if only for his seeming lack of desire for engagement. But who knows, maybe he'll come out as a spokesman for media standards in relation to unwarranted criticism of Obama. Lord knows he's seen his fair share of that.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Considering large areas are still without power or running water after five years I think you're pretty well wrong about this one. More people died under our occupation then would have died under Sadaam by an enormous margin, and there is nothing to point to the government that will take over as being any better than he was.

This war was coming. It just didn't have to come now. When Saddam died there was going to be a war of succession. We could have allowed it to happen, and probably come in with European support in order to restore order/oil. It would have saved us money, and maybe netted us some infrastructure gains if we spent in that area instead. However, I'm willing to bet that roughly the same number of Iraqis would have died, and they would have lost power/water for about as long. Oil prices would still have spiked too, but they would have done so for reasons of an actual supply contraction, as opposed to pure speculation.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Iraq is and will be a failure of an unheard of magnitude.

It cost about half as much as Vietnam (in adjusted dollars), and was unquestionably far more successful, so it certainly won't be of 'unheard magnitude' if it is a failure.

ShumaGorath wrote:
It was poorly conceived, poorly executed, and will be left on the verge of a sectarian civil war.

Poorly conceived. Yes. Poorly executed. No, at least not with respect to the initial decision to invade.

ShumaGorath wrote:
The surge only served to make a few cities safe, it has done little to quell the feelings of bitterness and the ambition of the sectarian groups that have not gone away.

You have a direct line to the sectarian groups? I envy you, I've spent 4 years studying the Islamic world, and Iraq in particular (for obvious reasons), and I would kill to have that.

Either way, it is incredibly naive to assume that nations are built on anything but blood. We won't build a nation in Iraq, as we do not have any kind of cultural parity. Democracy may take hold, but it will not be pro-America. At least not after the first political cycle.

But it is likely to be a nationalist body predicated on the sale of oil for revenue, which is really all it needs to be.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Thinking we're going to leave iraq better then it was before is like thinking Isreal just kicked the crap out of hamass and left nothing but flowers and happiness in its wake. It's delusional.

Thinking we'll leave it much worse is equally foolish. Possibly more so. Iraq was/is a waste of money, and influence, but much of the other critique of it is simply unfounded.

Thewhites only sign was in a store named "white spot in seal, alabama, the last sign came down in 1984, and yes it was a privately own food store,I remember my folks talking about although I was too young to understand at the time. I can't find a pic of the store, I believe it closed some time ago, it was in seale Alabama and it was named "White spot" I swear that was the name. Maybe somebody else could find it. (Edit) found mention of the store on this site. check out the 4th and 7th post

As for the prom thing http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18034102/

me and me girl at the time just crashed some other school's prom. All this being said the south isn't that bad, there were just a few "hold outs"

Although it was unofficial, ending at the wrong groups prom was a bad Idea.

Bush will be out of the office to enjoy his life. Shows again that in the first world you can get away with war crime.

Ghetto_Fight wrote:Bush will be out of the office to enjoy his life. Shows again that in the first world you can get away with war crime.

Prove it or Shut the Up.

Ghetto_Fight wrote:Bush will be out of the office to enjoy his life. Shows again that in the first world you can get away with war crime.

Yah, I think that is a bit over the top. I think there are some things that apparently went down which I most certainly do not agree with, but we're not shoving people in ovens over here.

dienekes96 wrote:Bush probably won't be vindicated, but someone will take a hard look at what he focused on and his successes, and they'll realize some truths the current media has no interest in. In 5 years, some enterprising political historian is going to dispassionately evaluate Bush's incredible contribution to the fight against AIDS in Africa, tripling US funding towards treatment...a decision that will eventually save MILLIONS.

Heh. You don't know the whole story. A lot of that aid came with strings attached...Christian right strings. They demanded that those nations preach abstinence first instead of doing mass distributions of condoms, etc. As a result, HIV/AIDS cases skyrocketed in a lot of those countries.

Do a little research on the topic and you'll see what I mean. It's much more of an indictment of the Bush adminstration than a success story. Unless you're a Christian right type. Then you'd probably be happy that we preached your ideology, even if it *cost* a few lives here and there.

IMO, the overall Bush adminstration isn't going to be viewed favorably. I suspect that once documents get declassified, we'll see all kinds of unsavory stuff going on between the adminstration and corporate entities, especially involving Iraq.

I think history will say Bush was a decent man, but was in over his head and too wrapped up in ideology at time when crises demanded practicality.

Frazzled wrote:

Ghetto_Fight wrote:Bush will be out of the office to enjoy his life. Shows again that in the first world you can get away with war crime.

Prove it or Shut the Up.

Okay.


Starting about 3:14 in, Bush admits to knowing about the interrogation methods used against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Mohammed as we now know was waterboarded in Guantanimo Bay prison. Bush's assertion is that since his lawyers told him waterboarding is legal, he could not have committed a crime. (Remember the politicization of the Justice department being discussed in the news recently? http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2009/01/13/more-evidence-of-political-bias-in-justice-department-hiring/ Basically Bush stocked the Justice Department with political hacks who would find justification for amongst other things, torture.) However waterboarding is currently illegal in the US and barred by the Geneva conventions. Since Bush has now admitted he knew about this act before it actually occurred, and that he authorized it, he has admitted to committing a war crime. Also, there's this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/14/us/14gitmo.html?_r=1

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:I think African Americans have a big shock in store if they think Obama is going to help them out.

He needs white voters to get him back next election. Give too much via affirmative action and trouble will be brewing. And the whites can now say 'why do you need affirmative action if an african american can become president?'. Even though Obama's life has been about as unrepresentative of african american life as you can get....

As others have said he tries not to make race an issue, and I'll think he'll continue to do so which will be off putting for the african american community, but will placate the white community.

No matter what the media (who've backed him as the golden child since the race began) say he's still a polititian and politicians chase votes.

There are a lot of weird assumptions at work there. I'm not sure why you think what's good for African-Americans is the opposite of what's good for white Americans and vice versa.

I also don't know if it's hysterical or just bizarre that a (presumably white) Aussie is claiming Obama isn't black enough. How do you know what "African-American life" is like?

Maybe I'm an donkey-cave, but can we hold off on criticizing President Obama (how weird is it to type that still?) until he actually does something?

Also, whilst no fan of GWB, I'll leave it up to history to judge him and I'd rather wait a year or two to pu the Bush 43 administration in perspective

BloodofOrks wrote:[Starting about 3:14 in, Bush admits to knowing about the interrogation methods used against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Mohammed as we now know was waterboarded in Guantanimo Bay prison.

He helped kill thousands of people in the US. I am totally ok with that.

Again

Isn't the point of the US that we are BETTER than these terrorist dickbags? Stooping to the level of torture loses the US the moral high ground, and consequently it's standing in the international community. I'm in favour of that scumsucker Khalid Sheikh Mohammed being executed for his part in 9/11, but only under due process of law. I just think following the laws, treaties and Constitution should be the way we are governed.

Frazzled wrote:

BloodofOrks wrote:[Starting about 3:14 in, Bush admits to knowing about the interrogation methods used against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Mohammed as we now know was waterboarded in Guantanimo Bay prison.

He helped kill thousands of people in the US. I am totally ok with that.

Again

Still illegal. Still a war crime. Not done as punishment for what he did but rather done to gather intelligence. Since their is NO evidence of actionable intelligence gathered (other than the insistence that it was, which has been contradicted by people who were in the room while he was being tortured) all Bush accomplished was to tarnish America's image. We are a nation of laws. Our nation made it through World war two the cold war and many others without torture. We have prosicuted our own who have tortured. We have signed international treaties promising to always prosecute torture. Our enemies torture. Are you suggesting that the US should not hold itself to a higher standard then Al Queda?

He helped kill thousands of people in the US

And he's scum. But Justice is blind for a reason. The rule of law applies uniformly. No one is ignored by the law, no one is immune. Everyone gets the same protections. Everyone. What about the fact that we cannot now prosecute many at Gitmo because they were tortured? Meaning we will likely have to simply let potential and proven terrorists go regardless of what they did? I suppose you're okay with that as well?
edit: spelling

chaplaingrabthar wrote:Maybe I'm an donkey-cave, but can we hold off on criticizing President Obama (how weird is it to type that still?) until he actually does something?

Literally ten minutes ago, I rode in an elevator with a woman who was laying into Obama already, in that "I want to give him a chance, BUT..." type of speech that just showed her existing political bias.

Ultimately, those firmly on the right will never give him a chance, those on firmly on the left will always give him another chance no matter what, and those of us in the middle will give him his four years and re-evaluate at that time.

Ultimately, those firmly on the right will never give him a chance, those on firmly on the left will always give him another chance no matter what, and those of us in the middle will give him his four years and re-evaluate at that time.

True words that. I guess I'm officially middle of the road. Some things so far good, some things not (referring to cabinet picks).

BloodofOrks wrote:
Still illegal. Still a war crime. Not done as punishment for what he did but rather done to gather intelligence. Since their is NO evidence of actionable intelligence gathered (other than the insistence that it was, which has been contradicted by people who were in the room while he was being tortured) all Bush accomplished was to tarnish America's image. We are a nation of laws. Our nation made it through World war two the cold war and many others without torture.

Interesting you mention WWII. Japanese-American internment ring a bell? Perhaps the bombing of Dresden?

Good luck with that case in a court of law. It has the same chance of seeing a courtroom as I do walking to the moon.

dienekes96 wrote:Interesting you mention WWII. Japanese-American internment ring a bell? Perhaps the bombing of Dresden?

.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaled_El-Masri#Release
Dude, they kidnapped a guy, flew him to Afghanistan tortured and raped him. Because he coincidentally happened to have the same name as an actual terrorist. When the US government realized its error, they dumped him in Albania with no money and no way to get home. I, personally find it a bit alarming that my government would commit such a terrible act and would very much like to see this properly investigated. That is why I will be writing my congressmen, and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and everyone else who actually gets to make the decision of whether or not this actually sees the inside of a courtroom. And if you have any love for democracy you'll do the same.

He sounds like a completely honest person based upon the wikipedia entry. I buy the false detention and the malnourishment (possibly due to his hunger strike), but the rest of it is based on his statements alone.

Like you, I wouldn't mind seeing it properly investigated as well, but probably for different reasons.

And you didn't answer my questions about WWII. So I'll assume you aren't seeing my point.

This war was coming. It just didn't have to come now. When Saddam died there was going to be a war of succession. We could have allowed it to happen, and probably come in with European support in order to restore order/oil. It would have saved us money, and maybe netted us some infrastructure gains if we spent in that area instead. However, I'm willing to bet that roughly the same number of Iraqis would have died, and they would have lost power/water for about as long. Oil prices would still have spiked too, but they would have done so for reasons of an actual supply contraction, as opposed to pure speculation.

Thats pure speculation of an event that would have been years if not decades away. It's also the exact same thing people believed about Castros death. With his failing health it sure doesn't seem to be resulting in a fractured cuba.

t cost about half as much as Vietnam (in adjusted dollars), and was unquestionably far more successful, so it certainly won't be of 'unheard magnitude' if it is a failure.

Explain how toppling a government, inciting civil war through inept governmental restructuring, and leaving it's populace to pick up the pieces will be more effective then a proxy conflict against one side of a civil war that already existed. Vietnam is a fairly successful story of post war recovery, and it had a fraction of the issues Iraq does now.

Poorly conceived. Yes. Poorly executed. No, at least not with respect to the initial decision to invade.

Your going to have to explain that one too. The initial decision to invade when logic and evidence concluded no weapons of mass destruction existed (remember, we had inspectors shouting themselves horse about the lack of WMDs) shows incredible lack of foresight and a willingness to place the effect before the cause. Any logical body would have believed the words of its own professionals with a direct line to the world over questionable spy intel from multiple conflicting sources that could agree on basically nothing but the fact that if sadaam were hiding something he's done a good job. The evidence for war wasn't manufactured, but it was amazingly dubious and flew in the face of much more concrete intelligence.

You have a direct line to the sectarian groups? I envy you, I've spent 4 years studying the Islamic world, and Iraq in particular (for obvious reasons), and I would kill to have that.

I'm sure you would. Heres a protip, talk to the people involved. Speak to a militant or "ex" militant in sadr city about what likely would occur in the event of armed conflict following an american withdrawl.

Either way, it is incredibly naive to assume that nations are built on anything but blood. We won't build a nation in Iraq, as we do not have any kind of cultural parity. Democracy may take hold, but it will not be pro-America. At least not after the first political cycle.

But it is likely to be a nationalist body predicated on the sale of oil for revenue, which is really all it needs to be.

So in effect it may or may not become exactly what it was before we invaded, anti american bias and all. Sooo.... Why was it a good idea to go in again?

Thinking we'll leave it much worse is equally foolish. Possibly more so. Iraq was/is a waste of money, and influence, but much of the other critique of it is simply unfounded.

I think you need to take a more pragmatic and logical viewpoint of this whole situation. You basically just said we are spending billions and wasting thousands upon thousands of lives (the number of iraqi civilians dead is utterly appalling and sickening) in order to build a nation that will be in most respects identical to the one we brought down.

dienekes96 wrote:And you didn't answer my questions about WWII. So I'll assume you aren't seeing my point.

That everyone is high and mighty and hates war crimes, until the bad guy is targetting them?

Yeah, it happens all the time, and if your side wins you'll probably get away with your crimes. But that doesn't make it acceptable, and it doesn't mean Bush shouldn't be charged with war crimes. He led an administration that lied to congress to gain approval to fight a war that's killed thousands of Americans, and a million over all. He's led an administration that kidnapped people, and flew them to regimes around the world to torture them. He oversaw Guantanamo, and the torture of people there.

He’ll get away with it, but that doesn’t change what he is.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Thats pure speculation of an event that would have been years if not decades away. It's also the exact same thing people believed about Castros death. With his failing health it sure doesn't seem to be resulting in a fractured cuba.

It is indeed speculation, and speculation cannot justify choices made. Good thing I'm not trying to justify the choice to invade.

Either way, Cuba is a tiny island which is easily controlled by centralized authority. Iraq is a large country which is not exactly known for readily apparent borders. In fact, I believe the term 'arbitrary' is frequently thrown around when considering the way the British demarcated the territory.

So, no, it isn't about the same thing as speculation about what will (because he isn't actually dead) happen after Castro's death. Especially considering that there have been *repeated* attempts at a coup in Iraq, where no major push to overthrow Castro has come without major US support.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Explain how toppling a government, inciting civil war through inept governmental restructuring, and leaving it's populace to pick up the pieces will be more effective then a proxy conflict against one side of a civil war that already existed.

You're discussing strategy, my comment was about tactics. From the perspective of the Presidency going to war is a strategic choice, and fighting the war a tactical one. Invading Iraq was a poor strategic choice, however the tactical choices made under the aegis of that strategy were not ineffective. Vietnam was a good strategic choice, under which poor tactical choices were made. Though even that isn't explicitly honest, as the strategic reality was not predicated on a victory in the conflict.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Vietnam is a fairly successful story of post war recovery, and it had a fraction of the issues Iraq does now.

True, but that has little to do with the actual prosecution of the conflict.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Your going to have to explain that one too. The initial decision to invade when logic and evidence concluded no weapons of mass destruction existed (remember, we had inspectors shouting themselves horse about the lack of WMDs) shows incredible lack of foresight and a willingness to place the effect before the cause.

The original reason to invade had nothing to do with WMD's. That was a diversionary piece of rhetoric. The invasion was predicated on the security of regional oil supplies. There are literally volumes of position papers, and strategic statements from the Reagan administration DoD guys explaining this. And there is/was an entire think-tank, The Project for the New American Century, essentially built around the idea.

Of course, the oil supply was never actually in danger. But Neocon paranoia is not predicated on that type of thinking. It might have been in danger some day, that was enough for them to deploy. It shouldn't have been, but it was.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Any logical body would have believed the words of its own professionals with a direct line to the world over questionable spy intel from multiple conflicting sources that could agree on basically nothing but the fact that if sadaam were hiding something he's done a good job. The evidence for war wasn't manufactured, but it was amazingly dubious and flew in the face of much more concrete intelligence.

Yes, and that would be the process of justifying the war, not prosecuting it.

ShumaGorath wrote:
I'm sure you would. Heres a protip, talk to the people involved. Speak to a militant or "ex" militant in sadr city about what likely would occur in the event of armed conflict following an american withdrawl.

Yes, I've done these things, or at least read the work of those that have. I'm aware the state is likely to crumble. You're confusing the decision to go to war with the actual prosecution of the war. These are distinct concepts.

ShumaGorath wrote:
So in effect it may or may not become exactly what it was before we invaded, anti american bias and all. Sooo.... Why was it a good idea to go in again?

Did I say it was a good idea? You're conflating my defense of the tactical approach with the strategic decision to invade.

ShumaGorath wrote:
I think you need to take a more pragmatic and logical viewpoint of this whole situation. You basically just said we are spending billions and wasting thousands upon thousands of lives (the number of iraqi civilians dead is utterly appalling and sickening) in order to build a nation that will be in most respects identical to the one we brought down.

Again defense of tactics does not equal defense of strategy, which makes me think you really have no idea what I've said.