I tried to hijack the "1700" thread below but I was unable. So here it is again.

For those who support our action in Iraq (not Afghanistan), with all that we know now, what would it take to make you say "It wasn't worth it." You can qualify it anyway you'd like. Money. Death's. Political instability. Whatever.

I'm asking because in all of the planning of such an action, there must have been a bunch of discussion surrounding this issue. Not just "what would the American people accept" which I suspect is a whole lot less than what the planners would accept, but what in the planners (and the supporters) minds would be unacceptable? When I put myself in that position, I'd assume that there wouldn't be a point when too much money was being spent to cause us to call it a failure, it'd have to be either a)loss of US life or b) political chaos resulting.

What do ye supporters think?

BE SPECIFIC.

BT

If they ran out of oil tomorrow...hah!!! (C. Matthews voice)

/tip your server, will be here all week.

I tried to hijack the "1700" thread below but I was unable. So here it is again.

For those who support our action in Iraq (not Afghanistan), with all that we know now, what would it take to make you say "It wasn't worth it." You can qualify it anyway you'd like. Money. Death's. Political instability. Whatever.

I'm asking because in all of the planning of such an action, there must have been a bunch of discussion surrounding this issue. Not just "what would the American people accept" which I suspect is a whole lot less than what the planners would accept, but what in the planners (and the supporters) minds would be unacceptable? When I put myself in that position, I'd assume that there wouldn't be a point when too much money was being spent to cause us to call it a failure, it'd have to be either a)loss of US life or b) political chaos resulting.

What do ye supporters think?

BE SPECIFIC.

BT

If the endgame is that we withdraw our troops, and a fundamentalist-style dictator, unfriendly to the United States and his (her) own people takes over, I think the whole thing would have been pretty unworth it.

If the endgame is that we withdraw our troops, and a fundamentalist-style dictator, unfriendly to the United States and his (her) own people takes over, I think the whole thing would have been pretty unworth it.
What do you figure the odds are of that happening? I say pretty good.

No loss of life number?

Just curious.

BT

No loss of life number?

Just curious.

BT

I don't really view loss of ("American") life as a significant statistic. Actually, that's not true. I just find it extremely unlikely that the Iraq war would reach the level that I would view as significant. I'm not trying to trivialize American loss of life, I just don't think the magnitude is all that significant.

What do you figure the odds are of that happening? I say pretty good.

I don't know. I'd figure probably 1:4. The odds of some part of that happening (dictator installed, etc.) are probably about 50:50.

I agree. If we withdraw because we cannot seem to get past a certain point and then a Sunni takes over where Saddam left off, it will be a miserable failure. I pray that doesn't happen. I hope that the Iraqi people feel these winds of freedom and consider them as important to them as we do for both us and them.

I don't mean to pick at an old scab here, but it is extremely unlikely this war will ever resemble VN in terms of American deaths. There are many reasons for that thinking, but paramount is the idea that there isn't another World Power supporting the fight of the insurgents/terrorists with weaponry and manpower, as was the case in VN and Korea. So please don't bring this up as a reason. We all agree that even minimal loss of life and severely wounded, is not desired or goes without regret.

with Downing Street, Gitmo, Abu Gharib, etc it's a recipe for anti American Mullah ruled theocracy as the front runner. just tune into Al Jazeera. We've overthrown the only anti fundamentalist state in the region.

in the words of the guiness guys (but with tongue firmly planted)

brilliant!

What do you figure the odds are of that happening? I say pretty good.
If we cut and run I would say you are right. Our presence there is to decrease those odds and give some form of real democracy a chance to take root. They need a stable government that has the loyalty of the people and a military that is loyal to those people and the country and not the government or an individual. That is why I feel we have survived so long as we are. There are enouggh people who value what is offered to make the task worthwhile. We won't fail because of Iraqis, if we fail it will be our own impatience with what it takes to accomplish the job.

but they won't take over, a democracy will elect Shias as they are the majority. Pretty soon they take over, the mullahs (Shia as well) take over and voila Fundie Theocracy.
Sunni's are the methodists of Islam (except the rare brand that Bin Laden Follows) Shia Islam is the stronghold of suicide bombers.

The Iraqi Shiites have been first to support democracy in Iraq. Many of them are secularists and of those that follow a more traditional religious belief, they are primarily followers of the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. He has called for moderation and for the Shia to not get drawn into a protracted fight between Shia and Sunni.

There is no doubt that what ever form of democracy eventually forms in Iraq, it will have a religious element to it. That is not only unavoidable, it is understandable.

Again, you sound like you are rooting for failure. I don't understand that way of thinking.

Sunni's are the methodists of Islam (except the rare brand that Bin Laden Follows) Shia Islam is the stronghold of suicide bombers.

I don't think I'd go that far. Suicide bombers seem to be drawn from both teams. It's more a function of regionalism than sect - Palistinians are mostly Shiite, so most of the suicide bombers in Israel are Shiite. But in Indonesia, most of the muslims are Sunni, so most of the suicide bombers there are Sunni. And the most radical sects of Islam (Wahabists, etc.) are Sunni-based.

The Iraqi Shiites have been first to support democracy in Iraq. Many of them are secularists and of those that follow a more traditional religious belief, are primarily followers of the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. He has called for moderation and for the Shia to not get drawn into a protracted fight between Shia and Sunni.

There is no doubt that what ever form of democracy eventually forms in Iraq, it will have a religious element to it. That is not only unavoidable, it is understandable.

Again, you sound like you are rooting for failure. I don't understand that way of thinking.


In fairness, if you were in the clear majority, you'd be rooting for democracy too. That's the simple reason that Iraq's Shiites want to get on with voting - they know they'll win.

Well yes of course. But the constitution they are drawing up will allow for representation from each sect. Hopefully they will not allow old hatreds to interfere with progress. The only way they win is if they work together as a whole. If Iraq gets split into smaller parts, I don't think anyone wins.

BE SPECIFIC.

BT

If they couldn't find any WMDs.