NationStates Jolt Archive

This is the moment we have all been waiting for (except for you Bush fans, that is). This is the moment when Bush was condemned by his own Party!!! The ranking Senate Republicans and Democrats have just recieved a report on the outcome of Iraq. The report predicts at best a bleak future, and at worst, a civil war. This was a report issued by the Pentagon, therefore, it is unpartisian and unbiased. Given the conditions before the war, and during, it predicts that there will be much more internal strife, and that it may possibly break down into revolt, leaving Bush guilty for the death of hundreds of thousands of people.

This is the site, please read the report.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/09/16/us.iraq.ap/index.html

This is the moment we have all been waiting for (except for you Bush fans, that is). This is the moment when Bush was condemned by his own Party!!! The ranking Senate Republicans and Democrats have just recieved a report on the outcome of Iraq. The report predicts at best a bleak future, and at worst, a civil war. This was a report issued by the Pentagon, therefore, it is unpartisian and unbiased. Given the conditions before the war, and during, it predicts that there will be much more internal strife, and that it may possibly break down into revolt, leaving Bush guilty for the death of hundreds of thousands of people.

This is the site, please read the report.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/09/16/us.iraq.ap/index.html

Wow....they can predict the future over there. Speculation....noone knows what will happen.

Wow....they can predict the future over there. Speculation....noone knows what will happen.
I can just see your head spinning all the way over here Biff.

I can just see your head spinning all the way over here Biff.

Nah....just laughing.

This is the moment we have all been waiting for (except for you Bush fans, that is). This is the moment when Bush was condemned by his own Party!!! The ranking Senate Republicans and Democrats have just recieved a report on the outcome of Iraq. The report predicts at best a bleak future, and at worst, a civil war. This was a report issued by the Pentagon, therefore, it is unpartisian and unbiased. Given the conditions before the war, and during, it predicts that there will be much more internal strife, and that it may possibly break down into revolt, leaving Bush guilty for the death of hundreds of thousands of people.

This is the site, please read the report.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/09/16/us.iraq.ap/index.html


Oh my..!

A CNN report showing that Iraq is having difficulties..!

Oh gosh..!

You mean countries don't just SPRING whole into wonderful utopian paradises after decades of abuse and the destruction of every major institution of a civilized nation by the natives, and a huge influx of thugs from every corner of the <insert-typical-religion-of-the-area-here> thugdom....!?

Oh my...!

Toto,.... We're not in Kansas anymore..!


:D

That report may be speculation, but it is one that is based on crucial investigation and interpretation. It takes into account all of the current factors going on in Iraq right now. And, as anybody could tell you, it looks pretty bleak.

I say split Iraq into three different countries

Oh my..!

A CNN report showing that Iraq is having difficulties..!

Oh gosh..!

You mean countries don't just SPRING whole into wonderful utopian paradises after decades of abuse and the destruction of every major institution of a civilized nation by the natives, and a huge influx of thugs from every corner of the <insert-typical-religion-of-the-area-here> thugdom....!?

Oh my...!

Toto,.... We're not in Kansas anymore..!


:D


Obviously that would be expected. But what is crucial, is that the Bush administration thought that we would be greeted as liberators, and that a republic of some sorts would just suddenly appear.

What you are missing from this, is that the reconstruction money was not used, and that the GOP is ticked off.

Also, the report that the CNN talks about was issued specifically for the president, by the Pentagon! There is no liberal media bias here! Is this seriously going to be a debate about wether the media is liberal or not? There are a million other threads designed for that. You should join one of those.

I say split Iraq into three different countries


Nah, we saw what happened to that in Yugoslavia. The ethnic violence that was spawned by the extreme nationalism caused a genocide. That's not something we want to see in Iraq again.

Its about time people other than us 'crazy misguided liberals' see that Bush's policies are WRONG AND INEFFECTUAL!!!

Its about time people other than us 'crazy misguided liberals' see that Bush's policies are WRONG AND INEFFECTUAL!!!


lol, not even the legitimate member's of his party want him! :D

And India, being split along religious lines, which lead to Kashmir being probably the most dangerous place in the whole world.


My sentiments exactly.

Nah, we saw what happened to that in Yugoslavia. The ethnic violence that was spawned by the extreme nationalism caused a genocide. That's not something we want to see in Iraq again.
And India, being split along religious lines, which lead to Kashmir being probably the most dangerous place in the whole world.

i dont think it takes much intelligence to figure out that iraq is in a very precarious position. the various ethnic and religious factions hate each other and are just "waiting" for a chance to get to killing off the other sides.

add in "outside agitator" terrorists from various groups and there is amost NO chance that we can leave iraq in the forseeable future and have them be a peaceful democratic country.

I've summed our election down to one conclusion about all of this, and it's quite simple, which extreme do you want???

Bush is a die hard conservative that anything that he sees as right, he does, no matter what anyone else has to say about it. If there's one thing about Bush it's that he WILL do what believes... no matter the cost to his polls, america, or anyone else for that matter. That is his real strong point and that is why so many people admire and will inevitably vote for him... because he actually does what he says and takes the consequences for his actions. He's a big spender for the military and tries to support the economy at home by cutting taxes, which can in theory work well, but not when you spend so much. However, his heavy spending on the military was BADLY needed after the Clinton administration because if you look into Clinton's record, he only cut two things in his adminstration's history, one of them had to do with agriculture subsidiaries, the other was the miltary and intelligence budgets... that's where all of Clinton's money for the economic surplus came from, our military. So if you go with Bush, you'll have a well funded army and higher morale amongst our soldiers, but invariably the economy may and probably will suffer to some extent.

Kerry on the other hand is quite the opposite of Bush. He thinks that things should be done only if their is support for the action amongst a majority of world leaders, which is all fine and good really, so long as you realize that sometimes you DO have to say to hell with the rest of the world and actually retaliate for attacks against your country, despite what world opinion is. Kerry is a man who changes his views constantly, which really isn't a bad thing either, so long as you have some substance to why you do that. He's also a big domestic spender and proponent of taxes on the upper class to pay for said domestic spending. Where does he intend to get his money from beyond that? Most likely the miltary and intelligence budgets based upon his past record in the Senate, which is the most reliable thing to go on. Therefore, you'll have a successful economy, but intelligence and military will most likely lose out on the budget increases they've been getting under Bush, to pay for Kerry's economics policies.

It's all very simple really, which issue is more important to you? A well funded military or a successful economy? A better candidate would be able to give us both, but unfortunately, we've got two extremes here and after researching both, I've come to the conclusion that this is what will inevitably happen based upon who wins.

By the way, the situation in Iraq will always be the way it is. Unfortunately for us, taking out a dictator who has stabilized a country for so long creates such a power gap that one group will want it all... and the other's will want just the same thing. Greed for power is a stong emotion amongst those people because they have been oppressed forever, and they want to have their chance at the top. I must admit however, that civil war may be the only way to resolve their problems, hell even our country went that road when things got too divided, but we overcame that struggle and became a greater country because of it. Regardless, the people in that country will inevitably resolve their differences and find a system that works for all of them, so long as we give them some long term support if they need it. Once they ask us to leave, we will and should, but until that day comes, we need to stick it out there for the long haul. I knew from the beginning that no matter what happened Iraq would not be a free country for at least 10 years after we toppled Saddam. It's just not a practical thing to expect a country like that to turn around years of hatred into a democracy in little over a year. However, long after Bush is gone from office, that country will one day thrive, it'll just take a long term commitment to do it. I only hope that that happens because otherwise, I fear for the long term survival of our country. If we lose Iraq, I fear we may lose much more than a single struggle against a country in the Middle East, we may eventually lose our superpower status in the long run... I just hope that that doesn't happen while I'm still around

Nah, we saw what happened to that in Yugoslavia. The ethnic violence that was spawned by the extreme nationalism caused a genocide. That's not something we want to see in Iraq again.
except iraq is divided into 3 distinct areas: kurds, shiites, and other group i cant think of name of right now, the country lines were drawn by britain back in the day

except iraq is divided into 3 distinct areas: kurds, shiites, and other group i cant think of name of right now, the country lines were drawn by britain back in the day
Suni (Sunni?) is the name for the third group.

And India, being split along religious lines, which lead to Kashmir being probably the most dangerous place in the whole world.

Well Kashmir is a bit more the simple Religious ideology. The region was about 98% Muslim.

Goverment Corruption is probably the root cause of why there isn't a solution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iakeokeo
Oh my..!

A CNN report showing that Iraq is having difficulties..!

Oh gosh..!

You mean countries don't just SPRING whole into wonderful utopian paradises after decades of abuse and the destruction of every major institution of a civilized nation by the natives, and a huge influx of thugs from every corner of the <insert-typical-religion-of-the-area-here> thugdom....!?

Oh my...!

Toto,.... We're not in Kansas anymore..!


Obviously that would be expected. But what is crucial, is that the Bush administration thought that we would be greeted as liberators, and that a republic of some sorts would just suddenly appear.

What you are missing from this, is that the reconstruction money was not used, and that the GOP is ticked off.

Also, the report that the CNN talks about was issued specifically for the president, by the Pentagon! There is no liberal media bias here! Is this seriously going to be a debate about wether the media is liberal or not? There are a million other threads designed for that. You should join one of those.

.."But what is crucial, is that the Bush administration thought that we would be greeted as liberators, and that a republic of some sorts would just suddenly appear."..

We were greeted as liberators, by some.

We still are greeted as liberators,.. by some.

No one (with half a brain) seriously expected anything but a nasty ride when we went into Iraq.

If you did expect it to be easy, either because you believed ANYONE who told you so, or because it "made sense that it would be easy", then you have been deluded since that point.

.."What you are missing from this, is that the reconstruction money was not used, and that the GOP is ticked off."..

I would rather they NOT use it unless it can be used effectively, than use it ineffectively.

That's called being sensible.

I LIKE that other republicans are making a stink about the situation! It shows a healthy variety of views within the so-called "right-wing".

Many of the policies of Bush's folks have been much TOO light-handed, in my opinion. This "difficulty" of security is a sure sign of that.

We should have gone in,.. done as we did in "capturing" the cities,.. secured the borders unto "airtightness",.. disallowed ALL motor vehical traffic until further notice,.. destroyed any vehicle not clearly identified as "one of us" on sight,.. imposed a complete curfew for the populace except between 10am to 2pm,.. shot anyone carrying a gun at ANY time on sight,.. hand picked a new government, given them a constitution based on the US constitution, set this new government up with what they need to "administer" the country, hand picked an army,...

...and told them that if they screw-up, we'll be back to destroy them utterly, leaving a unihabitable wasteland where Iraq used to be.

And pay for the whole affair, at cost plus 10 percent, from their oil.

And of course, if we had to make Iraq a wasteland, we (America) would move our petro-folks in and simply call it Amerpetrovia, the 51st state of the union.

Of course, this is pure fantasy.

But a more pleasing one to this simple island savage than the fantasy of either the current "left" or "right".

Why do we focus so much on what other people think of the candidates? Why can't we just form our own opinions based on facts - not speculation - and get on with life?

This is the moment we have all been waiting for (except for you Bush fans, that is). This is the moment when Bush was condemned by his own Party!!! The ranking Senate Republicans and Democrats have just recieved a report on the outcome of Iraq. The report predicts at best a bleak future, and at worst, a civil war. This was a report issued by the Pentagon, therefore, it is unpartisian and unbiased. Given the conditions before the war, and during, it predicts that there will be much more internal strife, and that it may possibly break down into revolt, leaving Bush guilty for the death of hundreds of thousands of people.

This is the site, please read the report.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/09/16/us.iraq.ap/index.html
This result is not totally unexpected. This area of the world has historically been resistent to change. The Brits tried it in the 20th century, and a host of other "conquerors" have tried to instill their ideology on those people. What we are witnessing is "their" desire to follow "their" own beliefs and systems, no matter how bad WE might have thought their existence was, and "their" desire for "liberation".

Perhaps a message was missed when the Russians tried to exert their will in Afghanistan and we all witnessed that result.

Afghanis resisted the Russians with every fibre of their being, and the same is happening once again in Afghanistan and also Iraq.

The fact remains that if people do not want to be "liberated", then there is nothing anyone can do about it. It appears that many are willing to pay the ultimate sacrifice rather than accepting any form of "liberation".

.."But what is crucial, is that the Bush administration thought that we would be greeted as liberators, and that a republic of some sorts would just suddenly appear."..

We were greeted as liberators, by some.

We still are greeted as liberators,.. by some.

No one (with half a brain) seriously expected anything but a nasty ride when we went into Iraq.

If you did expect it to be easy, either because you believed ANYONE who told you so, or because it "made sense that it would be easy", then you have been deluded since that point.

.."What you are missing from this, is that the reconstruction money was not used, and that the GOP is ticked off."..

I would rather they NOT use it unless it can be used effectively, than use it ineffectively.

That's called being sensible.

I LIKE that other republicans are making a stink about the situation! It shows a healthy variety of views within the so-called "right-wing".

Many of the policies of Bush's folks have been much TOO light-handed, in my opinion. This "difficulty" of security is a sure sign of that.

We should have gone in,.. done as we did in "capturing" the cities,.. secured the borders unto "airtightness",.. disallowed ALL motor vehical traffic until further notice,.. destroyed any vehicle not clearly identified as "one of us" on sight,.. imposed a complete curfew for the populace except between 10am to 2pm,.. shot anyone carrying a gun at ANY time on sight,.. hand picked a new government, given them a constitution based on the US constitution, set this new government up with what they need to "administer" the country, hand picked an army,...

...and told them that if they screw-up, we'll be back to destroy them utterly, leaving a unihabitable wasteland where Iraq used to be.

And pay for the whole affair, at cost plus 10 percent, from their oil.

And of course, if we had to make Iraq a wasteland, we (America) would move our petro-folks in and simply call it Amerpetrovia, the 51st state of the union.

Of course, this is pure fantasy.

But a more pleasing one to this simple island savage than the fantasy of either the current "left" or "right".
AHHHHH FREEDOM!!