The choice was Saddam or us, in Iraq.

There always option #3: Saddam, contain to his little corner and undergoing extensive weapons inspections, and us NOT in Iraq.

But tell us this, shooter242: if indeed it was perfectly justifiable for the US to invade Iraq on what you admit was just a perceived threat, why are you not advocating we pull out now that the "threat" doesn't exist?

Why are you not advocating we likewise invade North Korea, likewise ruled by a monstrous dictator and having a confirmed nuclear arsenal?

Or is it just you being a coward and unwilling to face the logic of your supposed positions?

since we are in this, we should give the Iraqis a chance to grow into nationhood. Fair, no?

Depends. Are you still committed to forcing the people in that geographic region to form a 'nation' called Iraq, or are you committed to actually hearing their demands that the US leave their territory and let them to decide their own affairs?

Though it wouldn't really matter to you guys if they did, would it? I mean, you heap as much scorn on Petraeus and McCain as you do on them.

All of it richly deserved.

At the end of the day, it's just a talking point for you;

It is "Reality" and "Holding them to minimal standards of accuracy" actually.

useful if you can get it in, but you don't really follow through on its implications - which is to say you have no more respect for those people you deem 'war lovers' (one of the stupidest descriptors around) if they do have military experience.

To the contrary, the implication is "If they're backing a policy that a total disaster and lying through their teeth to do so, military hero or not, they've earned every word against them."

Just a typical substanceless leftwing cheapshot.

Says the guy with a short fuse and no powder.

Or is nabalzbbfr just cheering, as he typically does, for death and destruction in general? - sysprog

No, that's about it. If we were back in 9 AD Rome, he'd be one of the citizens cheering news of the slaughter in Teutoburg Forest, utterly unbothered that it was three Roman Legions getting chopped into mincemeat and not the Germans.

Witness his latest calls for an attack on Iran, conveniently overlooking the logistical and practical consequences likely to follow from such a move (which would resemble Teutoburg Wald, but multiplied by a magnitude of 10). This guy is either a reincarnation of Ares/Mars himself, or he's even more fucked in the head than shooter242.

Either deliberately or unintentionally, I can't tell.

"All of it richly deserved."

Right, so military service/experience, whether it's former or current, really accords no extra respect from you loons. Ergo, it's a meaningless silly talking point of no consequence.

Military service/experience affords them no extra respect. It merely means they should have the experience to know better than to hitch their horses to what has clearly become a strategic and moral disaster. That they haven't unhitched said horse tells us much of their character and value to the discussion at hand.

"It is "Reality" and "Holding them to minimal standards of accuracy" actually."

Minimum standards of accuracy?

"It will be a cakewalk."

"The insurgency is in its last throes."

"We're turning a corner."

"The civil war in Iraq is over."

Any of this sound familiar? These guys are long on rosy predictions, all of which have turned out to have zero accuracy. That is what is meant here.

"To the contrary, the implication is "If they're backing a policy that a total disaster and lying through their teeth to do so, military hero or not, they've earned every word against them."

'Military hero or not' being the key phrase. If it doesn't matter to your argument such as it is - and it doesn't, self-evidently, since you have contempt for the military - why make an issue of it? Thanks for proving my point, ya dolt.

Re-read the original paragraph. The judgment rests on what they choose to support and advocate, not their service records. And personally, coming from an old Navy family, I regard service in the military no more or less worthy of respect than say a public school teacher in Brooklyn or a relief worker in the ICRC.

All are worthy of respect, but none are considered beyond criticism.

How difficult is that to understand, I ask you?