U.S. soldiers commenting that many, many Iraqi's are much worse off since the invasion, I have to wonder if they were truly liberated or further plunged into deeper chaos, given almost 60,000 Iraqi civilians have died in needless violence since Saddam was deposed....not to mention the tens of thousands of Iraqi military and police personel.

To apply that Historically would be to say that most French people would have been much better off if the Allies had just left Hitler and his buddies in France or maybe left the Japanese in the Phillipines. There is always a period after liberation that includes adjustments to freedom, vengeance & retalliation for prior acts and involves grabs for power. Whats going on there now is vengenace for things which happened during Saddams reign and the fight for control with not only Iraqis involved but also folks from Iran, Yemen, and every other muslim sect that wants more power in the region. There's also groups from outside of Iraq who've taken the opportunity to strike at the infidels.

You chose to comment on one sentence leaving the very next one out. Not only that, but your comment implied that my attitude was just the opposite. Why don't you take the very next sentence in reply #13 up there and let me know what you think. Thanks

My apologies, RadialFX. However, my comment was more a generalised 'how could there be any benifits' than a direct response to what you said. I guess it's just that I can't see ant benifits to the Iraqi people at this stage....so yeah, I am seeing the negative of which you speak and agree that learning how to do it better (without a war) next time would be the greatest positve to come from this debacle of modern history. So in essence, then, my comment supports yours....it is pretty easy to measure the negative, and that's largely due to there being too few benifits to mention, if any.

When modern warfare is largely seen as mechanised with tanks, guns, bombs and other military hardware, it's much easier to say "well we sure kicked his arse", but when you put a human face to it and tally the bodies of soldiers and civilians alike, it takes on a completely different perspective....moreso if one of those casualties happens to be a loved one.

Serial killers in many parts of the world are summarily executed for mutilating their victims, yet here we have a president and dozens of politicians who sanctioned this war and who are responsible for mutilating tens of thousands of people...yet they still walk free and are even applauded for their actions. I doubt there'd be any applause if the horrors of war were on the doorsteps of those clapping loudest...if the lies which secured a mandate to send young men into battle were fully exposed.

To apply that Historically would be to say that most French people would have been much better off if the Allies had just left Hitler and his buddies in France or maybe left the Japanese in the Phillipines.

Totally different scenario and not a fair comparison. Hitler and the Japanese were seeking world domination and were invaders in other peoples countries to steal their wealth and resources. Saddam Hussein was a leader in his own country and far from imposing his will on anyone but his own people....and he certainly wasn't on foreign soil as an aggressor stealing others' national resources. The question that remains unanswered here is this, if there are other dictators who are equally responsible for atrocities and other equally evil acts, why was Saddam Hussein alone singled out for removal and not the others?

Sadly, we will never know the truth because the powers that be will never publicly reveal the truth/subterfuge/hidden agendas behind the decision to invade Iraq. We can be almost certain it wasn't the alleged WMD's, so perhaps the public should be backing the powers that be into a corner and asking those hard questions. The outcome won't be the truth, but hopefully those hard questions would have them thinking twice about ever sending young men to die on foreign soil again.

it is pretty easy to measure the negative, and that's largely due to there being too few benifits to mention, if any.

While there are still large sections of Iraq that are not better off, there are large sections that are. I don't know about the press in Oz, but the press in the US is almost exclusively reporting on the negative, not the posative aspects of the war. Reconstruction has been going on and many Iraqi people are better off than they were.

yet here we have a president and dozens of politicians who sanctioned this war and who are responsible for mutilating tens of thousands of people...

Most of the casualties have been caused by Iraqis killing other Iraqis; not Coalition soldiers killing them. The problem isn't with the Coalition occupation, it's with some Iraqis not wanting a democracy of any kind.
Coalition force casualties are higher than they might be because the rules in place put a higher priority on peacekeeping than on keeping themselves safe.

War is a terrible thing. It's sad that we have to settle national or global problems this way. But there is one less tryrant out there today. Maybe Iraq can move forward a little faster now and less people have to die.

NO WMD'S? Ask the Kurds about that

TAPPER: What happened to the Kurds was in the 1980's. At the time of The U.S. invasion, after the Gulf War, the WMD's were gone. The U.N. inspections proved that and there haven't been any found since the invasion. Bush has even admmitted it.

Zubaz: I am not questioning your belief in God or God's power. I just think that when people follow an agenda which wrongly ends someones life it has nothing to do with God. Human beings can and should make the difference then. We shouldn't "whack" someone wrongly. If we fix that then we don't have to worry about God taking care of them. I am trying to say that in 2007 we should be enlightened enough to do what is right and I think that is truly what God wants.

You say local cases in Texas seem warrented. My God man we are deciding someones fate here! You say Amnesty Intl. lies but can you prove it? We see that Bush lied about the reason for invasion. That is a fact and not a lie. It's plain for all to see. So because you don't like what Amnesty Intl. is saying you call it lies even though much of what they are saying is based on actual events, facts.

Last of all you say that the deaths are caused by Iraqi killing Iraqi. This is true BUT this would not be going on if Bush had not invaded. You keep saying coaltion forces but in reality the vast majority of forces are U.S. forces. Britain is no more than a puppet for the U.S. anymore and that is sad. 900 Polish troops, what a joke. That's a coaltion? When the U.S. went into Afganistan they had to fly over Pakistan and the way they got the rights was to tell the Pakistanis that if they didn't let them then they'd be bombed into the Stone Age. This is how we spread Democracy and make coaltions.

This is true BUT this would not be going on if Bush had not invaded.

Actually sectarian violence was very common before the U.S. invaded.  The only difference now is we have the U.S. media involved.

TAPPER: What happened to the Kurds was in the 1980's.

I stand corrected...

Actually sectarian violence was very common before the U.S. invaded. The only difference now is we have the U.S. media involved.

True, been killing themselves in one way or another for hundreds of years. Radicals on two sides of the same religion.  

flame on me if you want but i see people glorifying a man's death as wrong...just...wrong.

Even though he was a ruthless dictator and murdered thousands i wish him to rest in peace. And with that i will not speak of this topic again.

I am done. Said all I'm gonna say!

Despite all I said: GOD BLESS AMERICA!

And God Bless The Chicago Bears!  

While I'm glad to see him gone, I don't think the violence in Iraq will end anyday soon...those suicide bombers and extremist clerics are not going to give up.

I don't know about the press in Oz, but the press in the US is almost exclusively reporting on the negative, not the posative aspects of the war. Reconstruction has been going on and many Iraqi people are better off than they were.

We're not getting a lot of press coverage here in Oz these days, but what we do get is less than encouraging in terms of the quality of life for millions of Iraqis...and I speak not of material possessions or modern goods and services. For most Iraqis, quality of life would be being able to take the dog for a walk without fear of being blown to kingdom come by a roadside bomb....being able to send their children off to school with the knowledge they'll return home safely and not be abducted or killed by insurgents....

Furthermore, I think 'reconstuction' is the key word here...if Iraq's infrastructure hadn't been bombed into obliteration in the first place, there would be no need to rebuild it. It's true there were sectors in the Shi-ite South without adequate power, water and sewerage, and perhaps in parts of the Kurdish North as well, but since the invasion there's a majority, rather than a minority of Iraqis, without those services we're able to take for granted. I can not see any positives in the reconstruction of that which needn't have been destroyed to begin with.

Most of the casualties have been caused by Iraqis killing other Iraqis; not Coalition soldiers killing them. The problem isn't with the Coalition occupation, it's with some Iraqis not wanting a democracy of any kind.

Whilst it is true that the recent spates of killings are due to sectarian violence, Iraqis against Iraqis, there are reports which indicate Iraqi military casualties were under-estimated and could be upwards of 50.000 - 60,000. If that's the case, given there'd be thousands upon thousands of bereaved families and friends, then not only is that horrific in itself, it probably explains the anti-U.S. sentiment and why most Iraqis want it out of their country...and I can't say that I blame them. Despite my intense dislike for 'evil' lil Johnny Howard and his cronies, I wouldn't want a superior military power invading and occupying Oz to shift the balance of power here, either.

Oh, and BTW, I don't blame the military personel for following orders that were based on lies....their oathes to 'service' exonerate and exclude them from all blame.

Furthermore, the Iraqis killing are each other off because the only authority they've known for more than two dacades has been removed....because previously contained sectarian violence is again able to run rampant. Law and order as they knew it was suddenly gone and all hell broke loose in its absence. The whole world condemned Saddam for his iron fist rule, but as is evidenced in the escalation of sectarian violence since his removal, maybe? he saw it was a 'necessary evil' (the lesser of two evils) to establish some semblance of order. I do not condone Saddam's methods, but in light of all the recent violence and talk of civil war, perhaps there was some method to his madness after all. More is the pity that Bush didn't consider the sectarian differences, demographics and political landscape of Iraq before jumpinmg in boots n' all.

Yes, Saddam was ruthless and many innocents lost their lives in the crossfire, but in terms of bloodshed, is that any worse than Bush saying casualties (civilian and/or otherwise) are an accepted fact of war, then sacrificing others lives in order to get the job done? At the end of the day, both leaders knowingly condemned people (both military and civilians alike) to death, and that's a fact I can not happily come to terms with.

BTW, Zubaz, my comments are not directed towards you personally and are not intended to be argumentative....I used the quotes to launch a generalised opinion on the subject at hand, okay!