C'mon Expat, yes I know damn near all militaries will exaggerate their capabilities, but even with that said comparing the former Soviet Union with Iraq is ridiculous. If we had ever thought we could roll over the Soviet Union like we did Iraq twice, we likely would have done it. Bottom line it was a bad comparison, even with said exaggerations the Soviet Union still would have been far far more damaging to go up against them then Iraq.

I am fully aware that our President has high levels of Security but again to draw a comparison to Saddam's last years in power is again highly ridiculous! He was under constant threat of assassination to a far higher degree then ever before coming from both the civilian sector and his own military the Isreali's and probably numerous others.

Bottom line, there weren't the threat they were made out to be and deception was used to get approval for this war that didn't need to happen.

OK -- I quoted historic facts and references, and the only thing you have to coutner it is your personal opinion. I don't think I can argue with that -- especially since you won't discuss my points that A) our intelligence assessments of threats have been wrong before and B) Saddam's personal security was not an indicator of imminent collapse.

I might buy the idea of Saddam's pending collapse if you presented evidence of significant political opposition, rogue leaders, inability to maintain order, etc. But you haven't. Saddam was brutal, but that brutality enabled him to keep a lid on the same ethnic arguments we've seen since the invasion. The fact that those tensions were kept in check up until the end testifies to how firmly he was still in control.

I don't deny that Saddam was brutal and I'm not saying he would have fallen out of power immediately, but he wasn't a threat to us and his own grip on Iraq was passed it's glory days. Had we been patient he likely would have been taken out or lost power eventually. Even if not he wasn't capable of harming us.

In regard to your comment about intelligence being wrong before, I agree with you on that. Where we part ways is that I believe the Admin for the most part knew the intell was wrong and pushed for fake intell to be created for the purpose of garnering support for their invasion.

So, it's not a matter of "I firmly believed the intell, but was wrong," coming from them, but rather "I knew we were stretching the truth, but didn't think we'd get caught eventually doing it,".

I will reemphasize that my assertion is they weren't a threat worthy of an invasion by us and the admin pretty much knew this, but wanted to invade them for a host of Neocon inspired reasons and knowingly manipulated intell to get support for it.

They believed once done we'd be greeted as liberators and showered with flowers and quickly and easily prop up a pro American Gov. Halliburton and others friends of Cheney's and Bush would get all the lush contracts surrounding oil and no questions would be asked because it was such a breeze.

They didn't count on the insurgents not going along with that and instead deciding to fight an occupation.

Im noticed neocon isnt being thrown around any more. Im assuming you found out what the meaning of the word meant

From Wiki
"neoconservatives want permanent revolution, want to use force to redraw the map of the Middle East, believe in preemptive war and using armed forces to force American ideals on others, believe that the ends justify the means, do not oppose the "welfare state" and a powerful federal government, endorse an "American empire" and progressive imperialism, and unconditionally support Israel."

Many of the architects of the current Iraq war that heavily influenced Bush were what you could consider Neoconservatives such as Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, and others.

From The Christian Science Monitor:

"Neocon 101
Some basic questions answered.
What do neoconservatives believe?
"Neocons" believe that the United States should not be ashamed to use its unrivaled power – forcefully if necessary – to promote its values around the world. Some even speak of the need to cultivate a US empire. Neoconservatives believe modern threats facing the US can no longer be reliably contained and therefore must be prevented, sometimes through preemptive military action.

Most neocons believe that the US has allowed dangers to gather by not spending enough on defense and not confronting threats aggressively enough. One such threat, they contend, was Saddam Hussein and his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Since the 1991 Gulf War, neocons relentlessly advocated Mr. Hussein's ouster.

Most neocons share unwavering support for Israel, which they see as crucial to US military sufficiency in a volatile region. They also see Israel as a key outpost of democracy in a region ruled by despots. Believing that authoritarianism and theocracy have allowed anti-Americanism to flourish in the Middle East, neocons advocate the democratic transformation of the region, starting with Iraq. They also believe the US is unnecessarily hampered by multilateral institutions, which they do not trust to effectively neutralize threats to global security.

What are the roots of neoconservative beliefs?
The original neocons were a small group of mostly Jewish liberal intellectuals who, in the 1960s and 70s, grew disenchanted with what they saw as the American left's social excesses and reluctance to spend adequately on defense. Many of these neocons worked in the 1970s for Democratic Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a staunch anti-communist. By the 1980s, most neocons had become Republicans, finding in President Ronald Reagan an avenue for their aggressive approach of confronting the Soviet Union with bold rhetoric and steep hikes in military spending. After the Soviet Union's fall, the neocons decried what they saw as American complacency. In the 1990s, they warned of the dangers of reducing both America's defense spending and its role in the world.

Unlike their predecessors, most younger neocons never experienced being left of center. They've always been "Reagan" Republicans.

What is the difference between a neoconservative and a conservative?

Liberals first applied the "neo" prefix to their comrades who broke ranks to become more conservative in the 1960s and 70s. The defectors remained more liberal on some domestic policy issues. But foreign policy stands have always defined neoconservatism. Where other conservatives favored détente and containment of the Soviet Union, neocons pushed direct confrontation, which became their raison d'etre during the 1970s and 80s.

Today, both conservatives and neocons favor a robust US military. But most conservatives express greater reservations about military intervention and so-called nation building. Neocons share no such reluctance. The post 9/11-campaigns against regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate that the neocons are not afraid to force regime change and reshape hostile states in the American image. Neocons believe the US must do to whatever it takes to end state-supported terrorism. For most, this means an aggressive push for democracy in the Middle East. Even after 9/11, many other conservatives, particularly in the isolationist wing, view this as an overzealous dream with nightmarish consequences.

How have neoconservatives influenced US foreign policy?

Finding a kindred spirit in President Reagan, neocons greatly influenced US foreign policy in the 1980s.

But in the 1990s, neocon cries failed to spur much action. Outside of Reaganite think tanks and Israel's right-wing Likud Party, their calls for regime change in Iraq were deemed provocative and extremist by the political mainstream. With a few notable exceptions, such as President Bill Clinton's decision to launch isolated strikes at suspected terrorist targets in Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, their talk of preemptive military action was largely dismissed as overkill.

Despite being muted by a president who called for restraint and humility in foreign affairs, neocons used the 1990s to hone their message and craft their blueprint for American power. Their forward thinking and long-time ties to Republican circles helped many neocons win key posts in the Bush administration.

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 moved much of the Bush administration closer than ever to neoconservative foreign policy. Only days after 9/11, one of the top neoconservative think tanks in Washington, the Project for a New American Century, wrote an open letter to President Bush calling for regime change in Iraq. Before long, Bush, who campaigned in 2000 against nation building and excessive military intervention overseas, also began calling for regime change in Iraq. In a highly significant nod to neocon influence, Bush chose the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) as the venue for a key February 2003 speech in which he declared that a US victory in Iraq "could begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace." AEI – the de facto headquarters for neconservative policy – had been calling for democratization of the Arab world for more than a decade.

What does a neoconservative dream world look like?

Neocons envision a world in which the United States is the unchallenged superpower, immune to threats. They believe that the US has a responsibility to act as a "benevolent global hegemon." In this capacity, the US would maintain an empire of sorts by helping to create democratic, economically liberal governments in place of "failed states" or oppressive regimes they deem threatening to the US or its interests. In the neocon dream world the entire Middle East would be democratized in the belief that this would eliminate a prime breeding ground for terrorists. This approach, they claim, is not only best for the US; it is best for the world. In their view, the world can only achieve peace through strong US leadership backed with credible force, not weak treaties to be disrespected by tyrants.

Any regime that is outwardly hostile to the US and could pose a threat would be confronted aggressively, not "appeased" or merely contained. The US military would be reconfigured around the world to allow for greater flexibility and quicker deployment to hot spots in the Middle East, as well as Central and Southeast Asia. The US would spend more on defense, particularly for high-tech, precision weaponry that could be used in preemptive strikes. It would work through multilateral institutions such as the United Nations when possible, but must never be constrained from acting in its best interests whenever necessary."

csumerall, what is your definition of the meaning of that word?

Thanks for the post. Frankly, I agree with the idea that we should believe in our nation and its ideals, and stick up for them instead of running around the world stage neurotic and apologetic to everyone. However, that doesn't mean enforcing beliefs on the point of a bayonet. Yet military might can be justified if our interests are at stake. The Bush administration isn't the first one that saw the US as a global policeman able to deal with bullies.

I noticed in reading your post that you used some creative editing, here is actually the begining portion that you accidently omitted
Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States from the rejection of the social liberalism, moral relativism, and New Left counterculture of the 1960s. It influenced the presidential administrations of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, representing a realignment in American politics, and the transition of some liberals to the right of the political spectrum; hence the term, which refers to being 'new' conservatives.[1] Neoconservatism emphasizes foreign policy as the paramount responsibility of government, maintaining that America's role as the world's sole superpower is indispensable to establishing and maintaining global order.[2]

The term neoconservative was originally used as a criticism against liberals who had "moved to the right".[3][4] Michael Harrington, a democratic socialist, coined the usage of neoconservative in a 1973 Dissent magazine article concerning welfare policy.[5] According to E. J. Dionne, the nascent neoconservatives were driven by "the notion that liberalism" had failed and "no longer knew what it was talking about."[1]

The first major neoconservative to embrace the term was Irving Kristol, in his 1979 article "Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed 'Neoconservative.'"[3] Kristol's ideas had been influential since the 1950s, when he co-founded and edited Encounter magazine.[6]. Another source was Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine from 1960 to 1995. By 1982 Podhoretz was calling himself a neoconservative, in a New York Times Magazine article titled "The Neoconservative Anguish over Reagan's Foreign Policy".[7][8]

I can paraphrase, it means new conservatives in reference to the liberals that turned conservative. But, I have noticed that alot of liberal talk show hosts using it in the wrong context so your not alone. But now you know.

Words change.

Since 2003 most people think of neocons as conservatives who like to overthrow other countries they don't like. That's why Rummy and shoot em in the face chicken hawk Dick are often included. I'd say that the tide turned when they weren't able to invade Iran. All in all I'd say we got off lightly. Not too many dead and most of our democracy intact. Maybe a trillion in the hole. Sure wish that Osama guy wasn't still running around, scum killed a lot of our folks.

Using that logic I could refer to most dems as communists though. Im a bigger fan of comparing points of views as opposed to name calling ect. Some folks are into that though

You mean using the logic that words change? I guess. The missused word I hear the most is liberal for democrat but I haven't seen communist used in it's place much.

Sorry didn't mean to offend. Osama Bin Laden did come and kill a bunch of our folks and I'm still sore. I take the part about scum back, but I still think he's not a nice fellow.

BTW I went back in this post and read some of the cut and pastes from SoCo, pretty infomative reading. I knew already about installing the wingers in jobs they weren't qualified for in the provisional authority but seeing it all in one place tied it together. Bushes history during the war is well known. Can't understand how those guys can be pro war but pro someone else going. I guess if you just party to oblivion it doesn't matter.