I wasn't blaming the military. They did all they could, and I am sure that most really tried to made a difference whereever they were stationed, rebuilding school and hospitals etc.

What I was critizicing was the nonexistent preparations and planning for after having won, because there was never any shred of doubt that the US would win. That lack of planning and Rumsfeld's lackadaisical comments in regards to the looting of the national museum in Baghdad, hospitals all over etc. still ring in my ears. "Bad things happen in war" HAH - it should have been his job to prevent all this with proper planning. If you argue that yes, getting of Saddam was in the geopolitical interest of the US with the added benefit of helping an opressed people, I don't really have a problem. I can even be swayed to say that military intervention to get rid of scumbags is a good thing as long as you stay to make sure that whatever follows afterwards won't have the chance to beomce the same or worse.

I can hardly blame George Bush for Obama withdrawing the troops now. That's ridiculous.

Bush didn't "start" this war. Saddam started the war when he invaded Kuwait and then broke the cease-fire consistently for 13 years. I am sick and tired of this new definition of "starting" a war.

World War 2 was started by Hitler (and Stalin) invading Poland, not by, for example, the US invading Europe.

I was in Israel in 2006 when the IDF "started" the war against Hizbullah after Hizbullah fired rockets at northern Israel for five years. So I am still a bit sensitive when it comes to this new definition of "start".

Bush had a clue. It was just very difficult to convince the rest of the world. The Bush administration had to fight a hostile Democratic party to convince them to send more troops to Iraq. And now it's Bush's fault?

The invasion was not perfect.

But the world rarely expect perfect results from anybody else. Only Israel and the Bush administration are expected to be capable of fighting a perfect war with every casualty accounted for by name (ironically, Israel even manages to do that).

The Iraqis were free not to kill each other and loot their museums. That they decided otherwise is hardly George Bush's fault.

I absolutely hate this attitude that something is X's fault because X failed to stop Y from doing it. It's not. It's Y's fault. Go ahead and blame the terrorists. THEY looted the museum, not Rumsfeld.

If American troops would stay it would be nearly impossible for a future regime to become as bad as Saddam's.

Obama, unfortunately, has other plans for Iraq.

Duh. Does anyone remember what reason was used to justify the invasion in 2003? It had nothing to do with Iraq invading Kuweit in 1990 (wasn't there a different war for that?) and all to do with as of today undiscovered WMD and a UN resolution and weapons inspectors. 

One could very well make a point in comparing it to a staged threat which was used then as a scapegoat.. but that would be ridiculous (honestl, I don't compare Hitler to Bush, it really is outrageous).

Why must you compare everything with Israel? What has israel got to do with what the US did or didn't do in Iraq? Ensuring public saftey and security after dismanteling the existing infrastructure could not possibly be the job of the victors of said  war! No, if anarchy happens after being bombed and invaded it is their own fault, they could have stayed home and not done it after all..  you can't be serious, or if you are you have very little knowledge of sociodynamics.

Why do police forces exist around the world, I pray you? Why is it their job to keep up order and ensure public safety everywhere else but in Iraq that doesn't matter because the Iraqis are the only ones for whom mobmentality doesn't apply in extreme circumstances and who have nobody to blame but themselves.. silly me for thinking that responsibilty for public safety lies with those who hold the defacto power.

The UN resolutions WERE the cease-fire in the Kuwait war.

The refusal of Iraq to prove the destruction of its WMDs (and the shooting at American and British aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones) WAS the breach of the cease-fire.

Duh.

I explained it.

The reason we didn't get rid of him in 1990 was because the UN refused to allow it.

The difference in 2003 was that Germany and France couldn't save their ally this time.

It's the middle east. Kurdistan and Israel are not very different.

Israel was one of the countries under Iraqi attack in 1990 and was a major target of Saddam-financed terrorists all through the 90s and before 2003.

And Israel suffers from the same problem as George Bush: the new definition of the word "start" when it comes to wars.

I have myself never rioted or killed anyone. I assume this can work for other people too, unless they don't want to.

I refuse to excuse the acts of terrorists just because they are Iraqis, especially since most of the terrorists in Iraq are not even from there to begin with.

It is NOT the police's fault if crime gets out of control. It's the criminals' fault. And if the criminals and their allies totally outnumber those who are trying to keep order, there is not much I can blame the police for.

Now, if all the so-called "peace protesters" had actually SUPPORTED the American military instead of giving hope to the terrorists by demanding that the Americans withdraw, I might agree that George Bush was to blame. But under the circumstances, with Arab terrorists and western liberals making it as hard as possible, I will blame first the perpetrators, then their supporters in the west, and last those who were trying to stop them and failed.

If you throw a non-swimmer into a lake under the applause of those standing around you, it's not the life guard's fault if your victim dies. It's yours primarily, and your supporters'.

To take the blame when criminals murder someone?

You have a very distorted view of reality. 

At least I have seen reality.

Yeah in your reality Isreal is the one thing that everything gets measured with, and the police has no reason to exist at all because civil unrest is not the fault of the police, it is the fault of the criminals. I gladly live in my own where public safety IS the jobof the police/government or whoever else holds that power and not a choice of  criminals and terrorists, thank you.

It's a good example.

I didn't say that.

It is.

No. Your public safety remains a choice of criminals and terrorists. The police can only make it harder for them, but they cannot totally stop them. Criminals and terrorists do not magically stop trying to harm you just because a police exists.

But as long as you are willing to blame the police rather than the criminals, criminals will have an easier life.

And what's the matter with you?

I said that I blame criminals and not the police for crime and you proceed to make up stories about me not believing that the police have a reason to exist or that you are somehow safer because you blame the police for crime rather than the perpetrators.

But do work with my example:

If you throw a non-swimmer into a lake under the applause of those standing around you, who should be blamed for the non-swimmer's death?

1. You

2. Your applauding supporters

3. The life guard

My answer is "you" and "your applauding supporters".

Blaming the life guard would mean disqualifying you and your supporters as moral agents. In my world view that is impossible.

(And if this happens anywhere in the Arab world, you would find a number 4 possibility: the Jews. I am not kidding.)

I misunderstood you then, sorry.

I don't see the comparison to the situation after the invasion in Iraq to your example with the swimmer. If I (looting criminal) throw a nonswimmer in a lake (commit acts of random violence and distruction) and those standing around (Us military) applaud and do nothing, who is to blame? You forgot that those standing around and doing nothing (Us mlitary) disbanded and disabled the lifeguards (Iraqi security/infrastructure of any sort).

Hmm you actually admit that those standing around (the US military) are also responsible, and even more so since they made a rescue by the lifeguards impossible in the first place. So it had to be their duty to stop the throwing in the lake, because standing around and doing nothing is never excuseable. At least in my reasoning. And those who throw always have to be stopped as well.

I believe it was you who introduced the metaphor of the US army being the "police". Why are they suddenly "applauding bystanders"?

Do you really believe that the US army applauded the terrorists?

I was more thinking of the pro-terror "peace activists" who vilify the US and celebrate the terrorists as "freedom fighters" or "resistance".

It is a completele mystery to how you managed to read the story like that.

"I will blame first the perpetrators, then their supporters in the west, and last those who were trying to stop them and failed."

The looters in spring 2003 weren't terrorists but mostly just regular Joe's wanting to blow off steam and take revenge on the elite.. but those things always develop their own dynamic. They didn't have supporters in the west and nobody understood why nothing was done to stop the anarchy.

HAD the US military done more to contain that mess in the beginning, public chaos and violence might not have spread as they did, and the islamic terrorists would not have had it as easy to gain power. So lack of planning caused 6 years of war and violence and daily bloodshed. And those looters are not the only ones who are to fault but also those who did nothing to stop them.

I don't really consider museum lootings a big problem. Saddam also destroyed ancient sites all the time. That was presumably worse. Or not. It doesn't matter. The museum looters didn't kill many people. And while the loss of artefacts is tragic it hardly compares to the other effects of tyranny and war.

To me it's obvious that there was simply too much anarchy to do much about it.

The looters are also not the source of six years of violence. And _IF_ the US had stopped the looters, who would have stopped terror attacks against civilians elsewhere?

The museum was just one example. They looted hospitals, ministaries, private homes, shops and businesses, and those are the incidents that caused anarchy. Violent behaviour spreads like a virus. Had it just been the museum that would not have been so bad. The looters caused widepsread lawlessness which prepared the ground for the rest.