So how is today different then 5-1-2003?

[mdmc]

Obama is our guy. Ending the "combat" "mission" in Iraq.
So Iraq is a stable, pro-west, secular, unified country?
No?
How long will it take for Iraq to stand on its own as a stable, pro-west, secular, unified country?

If we are able to declare mission accomplished in under 50 years (of war, blood, sacrifice), then the war was a smashing success, imho.

Has the "mission" really been "accomplished"?

[Nite Owl]

1. It was a complete waste of lives

and money. The only way to stop these useless wars to support the mic is to have a war tax. If people were going to be taxed to pay for whatever it costs then maybe they wouldn't be so rah rah to go to battle with the lives of our sons and daughters.

[mdmc]

2. good point my friend

:)

[Iterate]

4. Not a bad idea.

I'd be up for it. The tax that is.

In the early 1970's no one wanted to pay for the Vietnam war, so they put on a small telephone surcharge. Ma Bell howled, but it went into effect anyway, and of course I refused to pay it. Most people payed without knowing why it was there. That little tax didn't amount to much so it was canceled and instead they printed money and cut programs.

Somehow I imagine a $4000 per person income tax surcharge would instill some clear thinking where it is otherwise is hard to come by.

[joeybee12]

7. Sadly, you're absolutely right...

and moer people realize this than want to say it out loud.

[uncommon]

9. You are absolutely right -- this is a brilliant idea.

[smokey nj]

12. We could call it the "George W. Bush Freedom isn't Free" tax.

[Sheepshank]

3. Article today says Obama doesn't declare

mission accomplished, nor any reason to celebrate.

eta- http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama

President Barack Obama marked the end of the nation's combat mission in Iraq on Tuesday without declaring victory, winding down the U.S. role in a war he considered a terrible mistake.

<snip>

"It's not going to be a victory lap," Obama said earlier in the day at Fort Bliss,

<snip>

All U.S. troops are not expected to leave Iraq until the end of 2011, a final agreement that was secured before Obama took office.




Your point (other than pissing and moaning about something that wasnt said) is?

[mdmc]

5. My point is that we have not yet "won" the war in Iraq

Tomorrow will be just as dangerous in Iraq as yesterday was.

Iraq is not stable, secure, democratic, or pro-west.

Or to put it another way, if US troops are able to leave by the end of 2011, then the invasion was a brilliant idea (get rid of a dictator, create a pro-west democracy). A couple billion dollars, a couple thousand troops, and 100000 civilian casualties are a small price for spreading freedom and security.

I opposed the war because it would make us less safe, less free. I opposed the war because I thought a pro-west, stable, secure, secular, unified Iraq was at least 50 years of blood and money away.

[Sheepshank]

6. I was confused about the 2003 comparison

the Bush screw up of calling it "mission accomplished" immediately jump to mind. If it was not your intention to compare the two events, then I apologize.

So then the difference is there was no attmept to end any conflict in 2003.

[Skidmore]

11. I would wager part of the reason Iraq has been so dangerous is

because we have been occupying their land with a combat force. There was no declaration by the President that we "won" anything nor that the stated goal is to "win." I also didn't hear him say the goal was to spread democracy, freedom, or horse poo even, for that matter. I think he has been getting us out as quickly as he could and as he promised. There is such a thing as what we would like and what is possible in the moment. Recognizing the difference might be an important exercise for the left.

[unhappycamper]

8. What was the mission?

Missions were flying out of the mouths of bushies on a pretty regular basis, IIRC.

[hfojvt]

10. it is diffrerent by number of American and Iraqi deaths

In April of 2003 there were 80 American casualties. In August of 2010, there were 3.
In May of 2003, there were 42 American casualties, and in the year following "mission accomplished" there were 675 American (or coalition, the site says) casualties and a correspondingly high number of Iraqi deaths due to war and sectarian violence.

By contrast, in the last 12 months there have only been 79 American casualties.

http://icasualties.org/iraq/index.aspx

I am not sure why Iraq should be any more stable, pro-west, secular and unified than Syria, Iran or Pakistan. Or Lebanon.

[VMI Dem]

13. There are only 50,000 cooks left there now.

[mmonk]

14. Today is different because many people alive then

are no longer with us.