If the Iraq War went without any flaws, and the new government was standing strong,?
922895
I would probably have more faith in the current administration, but I would still whole-heartedly disagree with the republicans on so many key issues.
148410
I think there's little doubt about that.  The only reason the country was stable for so long was Saddam Hussein.  Oppresive dictatorship is a highly effective way to hold together a country that should be torn appart by different factions all vying for control.  Iraq is made up primarily of three groups: the Shi'it Muslims, the Sunni Muslims, and the Kurds.  If I remember correctly, the Sunni's have most of the money, but most of the population is Shi'it (I may have reversed the two, though), and neither group is too fond of the Kurds.  Under Saddam, you had the wealthy elite repressing the both other groups.  Now it's revenge time.  No way it's going to be stable.  Besides which anyone who's actually elected president by any kind of majority vote we're going to through out as too religious and too anti-American (guess what, they don't like us very much).
644624
Yes, because he wouldn't molly coddle to the left, he would just get the job done. We would have finished the war in Iraq. He wouldn't care about collateral damage. I bet the terrorists could still hide in the shadows, but Ted would still get them all.
865932
If the Iraqi government is strong enough to fully exercise its authority across the country, civil war can be avoidable.
675370
it was much better indeed in many ways.i dont deny the opression and tourtures that took place then,but who respected himself wasnt touched at all.there was at least security,ethics,a government anyone can complain with.now nothing,you may be picked from your home for nothing,tourtured in a savage way never practiced anywhere in the world,holes will be made in your body by electrical drills,then you are thrown in a sewage dump after you die.\ni wonder that most of those who give their openions are not iraqies,ask the iraqies what they are suffering from.those who say (i have been in iraq,i have seen,i talked to a fraind,etc),dont reflect the truth,cause  either they havent gone deep in to what is going on,or they some of those benefited from what is going on there.how can the iraqies be happier with only 4 houres of electricity a day,with ni petrol,with such an increasing poverity,with 100 people slaughtered in baghdad only,with 1090 women widowed ,500 children orphaned every day.be rational.where and when in the hell did occupation forces took care of a country and its people.do you think usa spent more than 400 billions and 2400 of its youth plus the thousands injured and crippled ,just to remove saddam and give the iraqies democracy.if you belive it,you are naive,i am sorry.mind you ,i hate saddam and his regime to the bone,but,now it is much worse.
1110482
Yes they would still be going on........To all the people who hate Bush,but Loved Clinton.....In no way was Bosnia or Somalia a threat to us......yet clinton sent troops to both places,and in Bosnia he sent in troops without UN Support.....I guess to Bush haters....The Lives of Bosnians and Somalians are worth more than Iraqi's.....................
1055735
Whe the Iraqi government takes over Iraq.  We pulled out of Somalia prematurely, and conditions got worse than they were before we went in.  We pulled out of Vietnam prematurely, and conditions got worse than they were when we went in.  There is no time limit for war.
259016
Depends who "they" are.  The only time it seemed like there was no fighting there is when a dictator like Saddam would have you killed or tortured if you were even caught talking about going against the government.
1057437
No.It would collapse.The country was so locked down for so long it is going to take some time for them all to figure out how to get along without killing each other.
321585
Free elections that had a much higher turn out than ours.\n\nBuilding of schools, hospitals, power plants, sewage plants so that people have more infrastructure than they did before the war.\n\nTrained Iraqi troops, and police so that eventually they will be able to secure their own country.
143318
Our troops would get to come home. People would stop dying for a LIE. We would stop spending billions on somebody else's country. (Wasn't the OIL supposed to pay for the war?) We would stop giving the cushy contracts to Halibutron at taxpayer expense. We would get to spend some of the money going to Iraq on domestic problems: pick your favorite, we have enough domestic problems to go around. Need I go on?
866315
Still comparing things that are irrelevant to each other?\n\nBy the way, when did we take Iraq?  Seems to me the fighting is still going, despite "Mission Accomplished."
762170
A stable government that allows it's citizens a voice through the electoral process.\n\nAn adequate and effective national defense force.\n\nSecure borders.\n\nFreedom of speech.\n\nFreedom from persecution.\n\nThe Rule of Law.\n\nThe list is long, but not unobtainable.\n\n\nAnd last but not least, the rest of the middle east gazing upon a free Iraq and saying amongst themselves. WE WANT THAT TOO!
271246
The war in Iraq ended a few years ago.  Saddam and his army were defeated quickly.  Troops stayed behind to help a fledgling country with security (from insurgents and terrorists) until they were strong enough to protect themselves.  The media is doing a good job of cutting down our president and military for that, and making it look like we are at war.
930872
aslong as the leader wasn't george bush's puppet I'd be interested!!\nOh and lower taxes would indeed rock!
436757
Above dates are true, but If McClellan had been elected during the war, he would have screwed things up, just like he screwed things up during battle. I do believe that he would have declared a truce, because he was always retreating rather than fighting, that is why the US Army kept replacing him.
974985
we would be at peace.  remember iraq had NOTHING to do with 911....  that was an inside job