I think it will go down as the most foolish offensive in americas history...No good reason for the hostilities!!

It all depends on who's writing on it. If if were were written in the future like how a modern historian would write about Rome, I would bet it would be shown as just another foolish and ill conceited war. It will be portrayed as a war that ended the American empire, much like how the Afghanistan invasion ended the Soviet Union, and how the world wars basically ended the French and British empires, an end of an era kind of thing.

It will be portrayed as a good-intentioned but flawed war with an ultimately good outcome.

As complete political idiocy.

Complex, because every historian will have their own view...and all those darn iconoclasts. Anyway, probably be seen as the general inability of the West to react to the new style of warfare, sub-state Terrorism.

As one of the many political events in the middle east and the series of Wars in the middle , directed by the Republican US or just US in accordance to some plans. that means it would be connected with other events other than it own. On it particular historians will notice that the war was sold to the stupid public on a lie , and historians would also say about the claims of the war being done for the Iraqians , as false. In that case it was a failure.

However we don't know how Iraq would play in the larger scene of either American or republican planning. Obama says that he is the opposite , but if he is elected he may prove otherwise. His actions would play a role on how Iraq would be portrayed other than the things i said.

One possible future event , in Iraq is the whole dispute about Kirkuk. Kurds who are the majority at the oil rich area of Kirkuk want the area to belong to Iraqi Kurdistan. There , by a law , there would be a referendum to decide who got control of that area at 2007 but it was postponed.

So there are things we do know about the war in Iraq and things we don't know. Always related on if you see things in the Humanistic way or in the earn the more resources and who cares about the casualties way. I am of the humanistic club and so i find it to be a total failure.

How the Vietnam war is being protrayed today might be a good guidance on this issue...

i have never liked that analogy....the world is a MUCH different place then that time period.

To pretend to know this is a fools' errand. The war is not even over, much less have the results fully played themselves out yet. This question probably cannot be truthfully and responsibly answered for another twenty years.

of course, but why not think about it?

of course, but why not think about it?
It's kinda like wondering how the War of the Spanish Succession would be portrayed in 1708, after Blenheim, Ramillies, Turin, and Oudenarde but before Malplaquet. The Allies had had a virtually unbroken string of victories up to that point (with a few notable French successes, but a very few at that, especially since 1704), and the French looked like they were deep in the hole; but then the Pyrrhic victory of Malplaquet came, and Marlborough was withdrawn, and part of Eugen's army was lost at Denain, resulting in the peace of Utrecht leading to not the utter dismemberment of France like some had suggested or even a clear-cut victory, but instead allowing Felipe V to take the Spanish throne and failing to take away most of Louis' conquests since the start of his reign. (Like Alsace...stupid larcenous French, grabbing land what's not theirs...:p)

So yeah, the occupation of Iraq isn't over yet by a long chalk, and even then the outcome will likely as not be more ambiguous than it seems right now to anyone. And far into the future, there will constantly be revisions of understanding and new evidence brought to light regarding the motives of blah or the reason behind yada. Trying to develop a conclusion on the extremely limited information we have at present (especially regarding the resolution of this particular conflict...which, last I checked, hadn't occurred yet) is kinda dumb. You can think about it, but I can almost guarantee you that you will be wrong.

If we win it was a great win for democracy over terrorism
if we lose, which we won't, it will be shown as the end of an erea

If we win it was a great win for democracy over terrorism

Wha!? tenchar

If we win it was a great win for democracy over terrorism
if we lose, which we won't, it will be shown as the end of an erea

Democracy has little to do with terrorism. What you said was akin to saying "a great win for capitalism over science". It makes very little sense.

depends...It has alot to do with the current Islamic Fundamentialist Movement

Democracy has little to do with terrorism. What you said was akin to saying "a great win for capitalism over science". It makes very little sense.

A win for democratic forces over Islamic theocratic forces.

It will be portrayed as a good-intentioned but flawed war with an ultimately good outcome.

I think you've hit the nail on the head there. Assuming trends continue* Iraq will probably turn out as a reasonably viable state. Nothing great, but not a real disaster either. As such, it'll be worthy of only passing mention in the chapter about middle-east tensions and politics around the turn of the millenium.

*Big Assuming

A win for democratic forces over Islamic theocratic forces.

Islam has little to do with it either. There are radicals in every aspect of society, labeling it exclusively Islam is nothing but close minded. If you said something like, "A win for democracy over totalitarianism", then yeah, that would make a lot of sense, because Iraq used to be run my a dictator. Saying "A win for democracy over Islam" however, doesn't make any sense at all.

Democracy has little to do with terrorism. What you said was akin to saying "a great win for capitalism over science". It makes very little sense.

well sorry I was not clear enough for you I had the idea in my mind put could not translate it well into words

A win for democratic forces over Islamic theocratic forces.

Now you're telling me Saddam was a theocrat? :lol:

I think it will go down as the most foolish offensive in americas history...No good reason for the hostilities!!

Well, it showed the US army could whatever it wants.

Now you're telling me Saddam was a theocrat? :lol:

I wasn't aware that the war in Iraq was being waged against Saddam Hussein.:rolleyes:

I mean Saddam Hussein is as relevant in the Iraq War as Arch duke Ferdinand was relevant at the Battle of the Somme.

I wasn't aware that the war in Iraq was being waged against Saddam Hussein.:rolleyes:

I mean Saddam Hussein is as relevant in the Iraq War as Arch duke Ferdinand was relevant at the Battle of the Somme.

The Iraq War has EVERYTHING to do with Saddam Hussein. Half of the reason we invaded was to remove Saddam from power. The other half is to check for WoMD because Saddam wouldn't let us in the country to check for them.

The Iraq War has EVERYTHING to do with Saddam Hussein. Half of the reason we invaded was to remove Saddam from power. The other half is to check for WoMD because Saddam wouldn't let us in the country to check for them.

And all that happened in the first month in 2003....Well, its 2008 now and the war is still going on and it's not much about Saddam Hussein and his goddamn WMDs anymore is it?

Saddam Hussein has been irrelevant since December 2003. Today (and for the last 5 years if anyone hasn't noticed) the war is about the uprising of Islamic fundamentalist terrorist against the coalition, the Iraqi government. That is what the war will be remembered for.

In the future, books written about the Iraq War will include a detailed first chapter about Saddam Hussein and his decades long shenanigans, a few paragraphs about WMDs, and the other 10 chapters will be about the uprisings, the militias, and the terrorists.

And all that happened in the first month in 2003....Well, its 2008 now and the war is still going on and it's not much about Saddam Hussein and his goddamn WMDs anymore is it?

His inexistent WMD, you mean?

No, the war is not and never was about that. It is, and was, a grab for some of the world's major oil reserves. A way to ensure that those dependent on Middle East oil (Europe and south east Asia) remained vassals of the USA.


Saddam Hussein has been irrelevant since December 2003. Today (and for the last 5 years if anyone hasn't noticed) the war is about the uprising of Islamic fundamentalist terrorist against the coalition, the Iraqi government. That is what the war will be remembered for.

Your so-called "islamic fundamentalist terrorism" serves the same purpose Saddam and the imaginary WMD served: a shoddy justification to carry on with the true purpose of the "war" (occupation).


In the future, books written about the Iraq War will include a detailed first chapter about Saddam Hussein and his decades long shenanigans, a few paragraphs about WMDs, and the other 10 chapters will be about the uprisings, the militias, and the terrorists.

A lot will indeed be said about the terrorist methods used to enslave 20 million people to the will of an occupying power that flatly refuses to leave its conquest, swiftly destroyed an existent state and split its territory into manageable regions allocated to opposing groups, and ruthlessly suppressed any "insurgency" against its interests.

Answer: it already has been portrayed as good (in a 6th grade geography textbook I read). It applauds the war and says it was a major victory in the war against terror. I wish I was kidding.

To pretend to know this is a fools' errand. The war is not even over, much less have the results fully played themselves out yet. This question probably cannot be truthfully and responsibly answered for another twenty years.

100% agree. The minute I saw this I thought of this. Instead of doing this you should write what you know about it down so if historians ever need proof they'll have it and they'll have a correct version of it.

100% agree. The minute I saw this I thought of this. Instead of doing this you should write what you know about it down so if historians ever need proof they'll have it and they'll have a correct version of it.

And then, when you read it 50 years from now, you'll be able to smile arrogantly because you know you've contributed to history. Even more so if you see your documant cited as a PRIMARY SOURCE DOCUMENT. :)

No, the war is not and never was about that. It is, and was, a grab for some of the world's major oil reserves. A way to ensure that those dependent on Middle East oil (Europe and south east Asia) remained vassals of the USA.

Conspiracy theories...

serves the same purpose Saddam and the imaginary WMD served: a shoddy justification to carry on with the true purpose of the "war" (occupation).

Its no great secret that the US military is occupying Iraq and trying to stem the violence there.

A lot will indeed be said about the terrorist methods used to enslave 20 million people to the will of an occupying power that flatly refuses to leave its conquest, swiftly destroyed an existent state and split its territory into manageable regions allocated to opposing groups, and ruthlessly suppressed any "insurgency" against its interests.

A lot will be said of that...but on seedy tripod sites with with a bunch of links to "9/11=Zionist" and "Apollo program hoax" sites and CIA tracked al-queda sites. I'm sure they'll have oodles to say.

And all that happened in the first month in 2003....Well, its 2008 now and the war is still going on and it's not much about Saddam Hussein and his goddamn WMDs anymore is it?

The war is still going on?

http://bastardlogic.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/mission-accomplished.jpg

Wake up man, the war is over, THE U.S. WON in 2003

I think it will be remembered as the time when the west stopped automatically assuming that the US was the good guy in a war. there has been niggling doubts since Vietnem, but for the first time theres been a whole load of kids growing up being told that the US is in the wrong in a war. Previously, this was an opinion held mainly by people on the left, but this time its the prevalent view.

It basically depends on how the situation in Iraq turns out. I we see that the ultimate end in Iraq that the nation is a peaceful nation and people are able to live their lives freely, then I would say that history will look kindly on the war, since a lot of good came out of it. Surely having people living a free live s worth you dying for. that is the very foundation that America was built on.

Now if the situation turns ugly then History will look upon this war very badly.

BTW, why is this in the History forum, this is clearly about a hypothetical situation, since the future does not exist.

And all that happened in the first month in 2003....Well, its 2008 now and the war is still going on and it's not much about Saddam Hussein and his goddamn WMDs anymore is it?
The invasion and the occupation represent two distinct phases of the Iraq War. The war was initially intended to overthrow Saddam, the conflict with Islamic extremists came afterwards. If the US had intended to fight Islamic extremists from the start, then they would not have invaded a fiercely secular state like Saddam's Iraq.

His inexistent WMD, you mean?

No, the war is not and never was about that. It is, and was, a grab for some of the world's major oil reserves. A way to ensure that those dependent on Middle East oil (Europe and south east Asia) remained vassals of the USA.



Your so-called "islamic fundamentalist terrorism" serves the same purpose Saddam and the imaginary WMD served: a shoddy justification to carry on with the true purpose of the "war" (occupation).



A lot will indeed be said about the terrorist methods used to enslave 20 million people to the will of an occupying power that flatly refuses to leave its conquest, swiftly destroyed an existent state and split its territory into manageable regions allocated to opposing groups, and ruthlessly suppressed any "insurgency" against its interests.


If we are truly in Iraq for oil, it is one of the biggest financial blunders in the history of the U.S.. For less then one-third the cost of the Iraq war, we could convert the entire country from coal, oil, and other fossil fuels, to solar energy.

How the American invasion of Iraq will be portrayed in the history books depends entirely on the people that write them.

"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it" - Sir Winston Churchill

"Until lions have their historians, tales of the hunt shall always glorify the hunter" - African proverb

I think both quotations are very true. American and other western history books will likely glorify it, except those western countries firmly against the war like France. Arabic history books will be most likely hostile towards the action, if not indifferent. These history books will be treated as quatsch by the Americans of course.

If we are truly in Iraq for oil, it is one of the biggest financial blunders in the history of the U.S.. For less then one-third the cost of the Iraq war, we could convert the entire country from coal, oil, and other fossil fuels, to solar energy.

This is rather how I think it will be remembered. A wild misdirection of resorces that marked (or caused or mutially constituted as you will) the end of US economic hegemony. Political hegemony too come to that.

The question that remains is in political terms will it be the US's Boer War or their Suez.

In the future, books written about the Iraq War will include a detailed first chapter about Saddam Hussein and his decades long shenanigans, a few paragraphs about WMDs, and the other 10 chapters will be about the uprisings, the militias, and the terrorists.

Probably a couple chapters on Curious George as well I'd bet.

Conspiracy theories...

No, no, no. You believe that people thought that the Earth was flat. Innominatu and other people know that people did not ever believe that Earth was flat.

Depends on the outcome.

Also, if it was about oil, why aren't we getting any more than we did before? We could have gotten oil from elswhere, or even on our own soil. It just wouldn't have been worth it to start a war over Iraq's oil when there are plenty of other places to get it. The Bush admin. probably just wanted to have a stable, preferably democratic ally, in the heart of the middle east.

Answer: it already has been portrayed as good (in a 6th grade geography textbook I read). It applauds the war and says it was a major victory in the war against terror. I wish I was kidding.

When was the book written? Back in 2003-4 it really did seem that way. Even now, it can still be seen as a victory, we overthrew Saddam, and Iraq is slowy becoming a peaceful democracy. If we don't screw up again it will be a huge success.

See: Iranian Monarchy; 1941-1979

Liberals like to over-simplify it by saying it was about Oil, because addressing the reality of the matter would require they do a bit of their own self-analysis, since Vietnam wasn't entirely different in it's real justification.

It's not oil. Not hardly. Our oil companies didn't make out bad, but they certianly didn't make out good enough to justify it and anyone involved would have known that. However, it wasn't about security or WMD's either. The invasion of Iraq was thought out well before 9/11 by the Project for the New American Century.

Iraq was about further destabilizing the middle east, building military bases in the area and the immense financial rewards reaped by the contractors and paid for by John Q. Citizen. Effectively getting you to pay for a lot of shotty worksmanship in rebuilding Iraq, which can be extra shotty since you'll never have to use it and don't give as much of a damn about the Iraquis as you might pretend to.

These three factors, along with a lot of more nuanced finessing, are the only logical explanations for Iraq that I've been able to figure.

Depends on the outcome.

Also, if it was about oil, why aren't we getting any more than we did before? We could have gotten oil from elswhere, or even on our own soil. It just wouldn't have been worth it to start a war over Iraq's oil when there are plenty of other places to get it. The Bush admin. probably just wanted to have a stable, preferably democratic ally, in the heart of the middle east.

Well, it's does not have to be about sucking the oil now, but securing the supply for the future when other places that have oil start to run out.

I think it will be seen as just another obvious excersize of political muscle. With 20-20 hindsightthe USA will have removed a destabilizing factor in a critical region, while gaining an ally and a base of operations. It is a no brainer, for anyone not immersed in a political soup.

J

Well, it's does not have to be about sucking the oil now, but securing the supply for the future when other places that have oil start to run out.

I still don't see why we would invade Iraq over oil while there is plenty of oil elswhere. There must be some other reason.

It's not the only reason - but still, invasion would not have happened if ME would not be the oil barrel of the world as no one would care about the area.

It all depends on who's writing on it. If if were were written in the future like how a modern historian would write about Rome, I would bet it would be shown as just another foolish and ill conceited war. It will be portrayed as a war that ended the American empire, much like how the Afghanistan invasion ended the Soviet Union, and how the world wars basically ended the French and British empires, an end of an era kind of thing.

America isn't dominating the world militarily - well it is but that's not the primary reason why it's dominating. It's dominating the world through creativity, economics and a form of cultural imperialism. This isn't going to end anytime soon.

The Iraq war will be just a minor footnote in history whether you think it's a success or disaster.

It's not the only reason - but still, invasion would not have happened if ME would not be the oil barrel of the world as no one would care about the area.

Yeah, having Iraq as a stable ally in the heart of the middle east does go a long way towards stabilizing the whole area. The invasion of Iraq was just another attempt by a superpower to forward their interests in the world.

Just because the US isnt doing well oil-wise dosent mean that wasnt a factor in the invasion. they never expected such resistance, you cant retroactively apply that knowledge. they didnt know when planning that they were going to f*** it up so badly, so they couldnt have known how badly it would go for them in respect to oil.

I think it will essentially set the stage for warfare on the new century: super-powerful armies being proved useless by guerilla tactics. As for good or bad, i think some of the world may view it as another attempt by America to police the world, though it will probably be successful in some way.
One other thing: Vietnam was a proxy war between 2 superpowers. While there may be other powers than the coalition at work in Iraq, it isn't part of a global struggle in the same way as Vietnam.
remember this: people see what they want to see, regardless of what's in front of their eyes

إن أع تهي إنفدلس إنفدد إرق إن ا فيلد أتتمبت وسنقر إت. أخ تهير فولسه مستكي سسد ان إسنمس دبرسسن أند إن أئ, أندر ا أن مندتي, سدي أربي أند دبي وإري أبلي وبرسهسي تهي أنتد ستتس وإته الل تهي مني تهي هفي أبتيند سللنق بترلم أفر تهي دسدس. تهي فندد تهي قلرس إسلمس سلبهتي أف أمرسا. بريسي بي والله.





Translation

In 2003 the infidels invaded Iraq in a failed attempt to conquer it. 2015 their foolish mistake caused an economic depression and in 2021, under a UN mandate, Saudi Arabia and Dubai were able to purchase the United States with all the money they have obtained selling petroleum over the decades. They founded the glorious Islamic Caliphate of America. Praise be to Allah.

Not that they would call it the Caliphate...

It all depends on who's writing on it. If if were were written in the future like how a modern historian would write about Rome, I would bet it would be shown as just another foolish and ill conceited war. It will be portrayed as a war that ended the American empire, much like how the Afghanistan invasion ended the Soviet Union, and how the world wars basically ended the French and British empires, an end of an era kind of thing.

The problem with your theory is that the US is winning in Iraq now after the Surge..so how is this ending the ''American Empire''

إن أع تهي إنفدلس إنفدد إرق إن ا فيلد أتتمبت وسنقر إت. أخ تهير فولسه مستكي سسد ان إسنمس دبرسسن أند إن أئ, أندر ا أن مندتي, سدي أربي أند دبي وإري أبلي وبرسهسي تهي أنتد ستتس وإته الل تهي مني تهي هفي أبتيند سللنق بترلم أفر تهي دسدس. تهي فندد تهي قلرس إسلمس سلبهتي أف أمرسا. بريسي بي والله.





Translation

In 2003 the infidels invaded Iraq in a failed attempt to conquer it. 2015 their foolish mistake caused an economic depression and in 2021, under a UN mandate, Saudi Arabia and Dubai were able to purchase the United States with all the money they have obtained selling petroleum over the decades. They founded the glorious Islamic Caliphate of America. Praise be to Allah.lol? If any 1 buys America itll be Bill Gates..:)

The problem with your theory is that the US is winning in Iraq now after the Surge..so how is this ending the ''American Empire''

What, you think the recent relative calm there is some king of victory? :lol:

It's a defeat! The defeat of the old "divide and rule" strategy. The whole idea was not to allow a "prosperous, stable Iraq" to emerge. Or to postpone it for as long as possible - that, not incompetence, was the real motive behind the methodical destruction of the iraqi state apparatus. The new occupiers learned from the older british experience of placing a puppet on the iraqi throne: the puppet got overthrown and british interests were taken over by the new rulers. Better not to allow any centralized state to emerge again...

Stable nations have a nasty tendency to produce independent elites interested in taking direct control over their natural resources and foreign policy. And when the local population hates the invader and the neighboring nations are rivals of the invader and have a lot of leverage there, the invader doesn't want stability. Especially not after investing a lot on propaganda about "liberating" the country: what if the new government of the liberated country misbehaves and actually acts as if it was sovereign, demanding that the invader leave, immediately and unconditionally? You can't flatly deny it without exposing the sham and wasting the propaganda.
That's what the iraqis seem to be trying to do for months, now...the different factions there have overcome their differences and stopped fighting so they could get the invader out by negating the justifications used for the occupation. And they chose a good time, for sure (stability, oil prices, and the finantial crisis...).

There isn't even any need to look back to the difficulties of the british empire in the Middle East. In this kind of war the "empire" is always some actor that has sufficient military might to disturb ad decide a regional balance. In this particular war that actor is an intruder into the region, but regardless of that imperial strategy is always the same: create and maintain instability. Unless the empire is strong enough to definitely conquer the whole region (an anomalous situation that actually did not happen often in history), it must depend on playing regional actors against each other and acting as an arbiter, throwing support this or that way, never allowing the situation to stabilize.

Unfortunately the war has destabilised the area.

Even though the coalition forcess are having some suxcess right now there is a load of different insurgent groups about with some 50 potential Saddams, Americas ally Turkey is Bombing northern Irak that the USA technicaly is supposed to protect.

Whilst Iran (Americas suppsed top enemy) is gaining more influence in the area because of the large Shia majority in Irak wich technicaly is supposed to be allied with the USA.

This as the the campain against the Talliban is starting to go badly because there never was enough troops there from the start (they went to Irak) wich has seriously destabilised Pakistan, an American ally (and a nuclear Power) because their religious northern tribes are backing the Talliban.

The mess could not have been greater, let us not kidd ourselves!:nuke:

It will depend on the outcome, If we pull out it will be known as a mess where we abandoned a war torn country for dead, Iraq would be the new Somalia, If we win it will be seen as a great victory over an evil despot and over millitant islam.

As more informantion becomes available, historians' opinions about the war will change. At this point we don't even know how it will play out. Opinions about some aspects of WW II are much different today than they were twenty years ago. I can't help thinking that, in the long run, this war will be viewed as little more than a footnote in the history of a part of the world that has seen almost continuous war for over 3000 years.

On Google translate, your Arabic prediction turned out like this:

The blood thinner Grooming Anfdls Anfdd to a Field Ataatmpt and Gyrfalcon come. Ahern brother Tulsa poor Ssd that Asnms Dberssn End that dialogue, that rarest of a Mando, in vain raise Dubai's End I wear and Barshsai preparing a forum convened Stts and Ate God is preparing me ready adapted Aptind Slnak Waterloo HAVRE Grooming Dsds. Grooming denounced Grooming Klrs Aslms Mhetti F Summers. Chris me and God.


Are you sure you weren't lying to us about that translation?


EDIT: No you weren't, it's just Google translate doesn't pick up hamza or harakat :wallbash:

Man, We should have listened to the French and Germans about Iraq. They were right all along

To pretend to know this is a fools' errand. The war is not even over, much less have the results fully played themselves out yet. This question probably cannot be truthfully and responsibly answered for another twenty years.

I agree. I think a Chinese Communist said that it was too soon to tell what the effects of French Revolution. It's a matter scale, I guess.

when all cards will be shown... we will see the true face of the war and mainly it will dominate the books.

Will it even be written about? At most there will be a passing reference to it in the chapter describing the post-9/11 world (i.e the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, Middle east tensions, etc). Something like:

In March 2003, the Congress of the United States of America authorized a controversial invasion of the nation of Iraq. The Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was captured, tried, and hung, while free elections were held. However, tensions between Sunnis and Sh'ia in Iraq exploded into civil war, put down by the American-led coalition. A new democratic government and civilian-controlled military took back control of Iraq in late 2009. Tensions in the region raised by the war would continue to...

This war would have little if no impact on world politics. It's just like a -1 diplomacy point in Civ for the US, and Iran being a tad less aggravated.

Will it even be written about? At most there will be a passing reference to it in the chapter describing the post-9/11 world (i.e the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, Middle east tensions, etc).
"History book" doesn't mean a 6-page pamphlet covering the entirety of history, y'know. It's likely that someone, somewhere, will feel the need to at least write a proper paragraph about it... :rolleyes:

Maybe like one of the Punic Wars...

"History book" doesn't mean a 6-page pamphlet covering the entirety of history, y'know. It's likely that someone, somewhere, will feel the need to at least write a proper paragraph about it... :rolleyes:

By history book I meant standard high-school level text relating to World History (roughly 800 pages of actual history in size 9 text). :rolleyes: to you too.

By history book I meant standard high-school level text relating to World History (roughly 800 pages of actual history in size 9 text). :rolleyes: to you too.
That's a fairly arbitrary definition, and not one which is any help answering the question posed by the OP.

actually, things may change... and so the war would get more or less recognition. It's really arbitrary how many or how few words will be spent on the issue.

I think it still yet depends on how it all finally plays out...a lot could still happen before it is really over...This may only be the very early beginning of an extremely catastrophic ending!!

Or it may be the final last gasp of an over curious little monkey named "George". :lol:

The war won't be taught to American children, because it will end up being a failure. All the war proves is how stupid Americans really are, and how much quicker their Imperialistic tactics will crumble.

You know, the best thing about the above posts and those like it is that the poster doesn't understand the self pawnage they inflict when making them.

In any case, I agree with Gooblah. By any relative measure Iraq is nothing more significant than any number of Bush wars fought by Franch or Britain in the 17-19th centuries. You youngins only think it is significant because you don't know anything else, and because you want to be a part of something significant.

In any case, I agree with Gooblah. By any relative measure Iraq is nothing more significant than any number of Bush wars fought by Franch or Britain in the 17-19th centuries. You youngins only think it is significant because you don't know anything else, and because you want to be a part of something significant.
I'd say that US intervention in the Middle East, whatever it's form, is still notable. Regardless of the importance of any individual conflict, it all adds towards a very significant issue within contemporary world politics. The ideological clash between Islam and the West is not simply the headbutting of empires, it's a clash of cultures and ideologies. Maybe the sides aren't as clear cut as the Cold War, the ideologies not as well defined or as consistent, but every little war contributes to a greater conflict, and the invasion of Iraq is certainly among the most prominent of them, at least until this point.