Just think how much MORE power * would have if Iraq had gone "smoothly".

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

At least the early Blitzkrieg "worked" and the wonderful effect of glorious military victory on the national psyche contributed to the momentum of THAT machine.

Imagine, if there was no effective resistance, if Iraq was occupied by 20,000 or so troops with one death every month or so, and Iraq oil revenues were rolling through the front or back door into U.S. coffers (and private bank accounts, although I suspect THAT part of the scenario has come true). I think this was the original "Mission Accomplished" scenario.

What do you think the shrub's poll numbers would be then, Katrina or not? And the Vichy Dems in congress couldn't WAIT to place the laurel on his brow and sand blast George Washington off of Mt. Rushmore to make place for the new George.

Even with a crappy quagmire, and Katrina, these people still have all the power. They have to claw and scratch for every piece of it, but they've shown every willingness to do that, and so far, they are winning almost all the battles.

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. They would have invaded Iran & would have been stopped there

instead. Anyhow, it's not worth the speculation, since things have turned out just about how they were going to.

[DS1]

2. I see your point

but this thread is Rush fodder, he'll be talking about it saying how Democrats want Iraq to fail ;-)

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

4. Oh it wouldn't make the Iraq invasion any less immoral. It just has to do

with the sheeplike response of people. The glorious sunset carrier landing was designed to play on this easy victory scenario and feed off people's simplistic nationalistic desire for military glory. And in this, as in most countries, it would have worked beautifully if the events on the ground had cooperated.

We would probably see that Mission Accomplished image about 20 times a day if things had gone "as expected".

[DS1]

6. Yup

In fact I could see Bush switching his flag pin to a "Southwest Asia Tour" ribbon :eyes:

[European Socialist]

3. I've thought about this often--If we had "mission accomplished" and ....

$1.75 gas--we would have King Chimpy.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

5. Well we kind of have him anyway, but his hold on the crown is a bit

more tenuous.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

7. So we're glad we're losing over there?

I can't go there with you. Sorry.

[RethugAssKicker]

8. If things were going well there

We would be in every country in the Middle East.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

10. Okay, this is a hypothetical and a strange one

but IF it went beautifully over there then maybe we'd have justification to go into other countries amd do the same lovely thing. (which of course it wasn't and it isn't)

Now, don't get me wrong...I don't advocate preemptive war...just saying.

Convoluted enough for you? Personally, my head just exploded.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

12. So if you invade countries, and people are too afraid to resist, then that

justifies doing it to that country, and to others? :shrug:

[TallahasseeGrannie]

15. Well, actually I'm not married

to that concept..I was arguing for the sake of arguing. Been with middle schoolers all day. On break.

But if they HAD thrown flowers and made things go every so smoothly for us and welcomed us with outstretched arms, then in that alternate universe maybe "liberation" would be a good thing. But it didn't work out that way so the whole thing is moot.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

9. No I'm not glad Americans are being killed. I'm just saying think how

much power Bush would have.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

13. Post title edited. When I said things would be worse, I meant it strictly

from the standpoint of how much more grim the domestic political scene would be than it even is now.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

16. I like your edit.

it's a touchy subject, Dems wanting us to fail over there. Never fails to end up on Malkin or LGF.

[keith the dem]

11. If they were competent enough for the occupation to go smoothly.....

They WOULD NOT HAVE INVADED!!!!

The gross incompetence of the * administration is worse than any in history. In comparison, Nixon was a flaming competent liberal, even Ray-gun made mid course corrections to get rid of some of the worst RW incompetents(Watt?).

[CJCRANE]

14. I think the neocons like a gamble.

The when then they get into a situation they like to spin their way out it.

[EST]

17. This certainly provides food for thought.

Even in some alternate universe, the BFEE and its evil cabal didn't just suddenly become what they are because of their failures. The failures, lies, power hunger, and all the other neat shit that makes them what they are, are all built in. No matter what they choose to attack, it'll be the wrong thing, the wrong time and will be designed, whether intentionally or by entropy, to be an utter failure, with the price being paid in human misery and death.
The whole point to their activities and plotting is to force control on the population, whether or not they are met by resistance; their strength derives not from the smooth completion of any takeover, but from the continued onslaughts on freedom. To the point--they can be depended on to pretty much fu*k up anything they tackle. If it weren't Iraq, it would be a project of about the same size, with the same screw ups, and, potentially even greater destruction.
Details are difficult to predict, but broad issues are fairly easy. Bushco and the neo-clowns were aimed at capturing Iraq, turning everything over to private interests and selling all of it off. Raping the planet and its people is what they are about, but their fundamental incompetence always makes the road more rocky. And that fact really doesn't matter.