NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems like Iraq will end in one of two ways. One is a shi'ia (demo)theocracy that is under the control of Iran who has become the regional power. Two is a civil war that threatens to spilt Iraq apart. Neither seems to be good for the west or the region for that matter. So what the hell is the point of staying there? Nothing good is going to come out of this so please, give me a reason why we should stay or tell me something good that will come out of Iraq.

Best case scenario is probably a new secular dictator, but I'm not holding my breath for that to happen. Great leaders like Saddam Hussein don't come around every day.

It seems like Iraq will end in one of two ways. One is a shi'ia (demo)theocracy that is under the control of Iran who has become the regional power. Two is a civil war that threatens to spilt Iraq apart. Neither seems to be good for the west or the region for that matter. So what the hell is the point of staying there? Nothing good is going to come out of this so please, give me a reason why we should stay or tell me something good that will come out of Iraq.

Democracy in Iraq would be something good to come out of Iraq. Unlike you, I am optimistic and have high hopes for that nation. I do not think that it will become a theocracy.

So why the negative attitude?

The general concept of sticking around is that we can eventually force some sort of a compromise, and over time it might become generally accepted. It's not exactly a cheap or efficient method, but we planned this fucker wrong from the beginning, and now we've got to figure out some way to fix it up.

Or the American military will stay in Iraq for the next decade propping up a weak Iraqi democracy.

Democracy in Iraq would be something good to come out of Iraq. Unlike you, I am optimistic and have high hopes for that nation. I do not think that it will become a theocracy.

So why the negative attitude?

Why the negative attitude? No clue maybe its because 1,000s upon 1,000s of lives both Iraqi and coalition have been wasted as well as billions upon billions of dollars on this little exercise in democracy. And for what? So they can vote people into power that hate the west and secular life but love Iran. So why are you so optimistic?

Why the negative attitude? No clue maybe its because 1,000s upon 1,000s of lives both Iraqi and coalition have been wasted as well as billions upon billions of dollars on this little exercise in democracy. And for what? So they can vote people into power that hate the west and secular life but love Iran. So why are you so optimistic?

At least they have the opportunity to make their choice.

Why the negative attitude? No clue maybe its because 1,000s upon 1,000s of lives both Iraqi and coalition have been wasted as well as billions upon billions of dollars on this little exercise in democracy. And for what? So they can vote people into power that hate the west and secular life but love Iran. So why are you so optimistic?

Probably because of the stories that are not being published by the press or getting glossed over by the press. There is more going on here than just terrorism in Iraq.

Democracy in Iraq would be something good to come out of Iraq. Unlike you, I am optimistic and have high hopes for that nation. I do not think that it will become a theocracy.

So why the negative attitude?

Sense, reason, realism, honesty.

It seems like Iraq will end in one of two ways. One is a shi'ia (demo)theocracy that is under the control of Iran who has become the regional power. Two is a civil war that threatens to spilt Iraq apart. Neither seems to be good for the west or the region for that matter. So what the hell is the point of staying there? Nothing good is going to come out of this so please, give me a reason why we should stay or tell me something good that will come out of Iraq.

I'm batting 1000 so far in my Iraq predictions
1 I said there would be no WMD's
2 That the Iraqi army would a roll over
3 that invading Iraq would only be bringing a supply of targets to the terrorists
4 That the Iraqi's would turn on each other-civil war
5 that the US miltary could not control Iraq, a no win situation

ok- my next prediction-once the US pulls out Iraq will come apart, 3 countries, Iran will aid the south, there is an entire Iraqi army waiting to re-enter Iraq from Iran. They'll be autonomous at first then make the split total later on, Kurds will be aprehensive about the Turks and the Iranians.

The US shouldn't stay-it should never have gone to Iraq, there was no need.Wasted lives.

Probably because of the stories that are not being published by the press or getting glossed over by the press. There is more going on here than just terrorism in Iraq.

like....

Obey and be rich under my patronage, babies! ;)

So why are you so optimistic?

Because our Holy First Prophet Incarnate said we've already accomplished our mission. :rolleyes:

Because our Holy First Prophet Incarnate said we've already accomplished our mission. :rolleyes:

Are you saying the man chosen by God may have been talking out of his ass? :eek:

How can you distrust someone like this? :p

http://www.msu.edu/user/stoetze4/bush/Bush%20in%20flight%20suit.bmp

Doesn't this image just fill you with confidence? :rolleyes:

Best case scenario is probably a new secular dictator, but I'm not holding my breath for that to happen. Great leaders like Saddam Hussein don't come around every day.


You really liked Saddam didn't you?

Doesn't this image just fill you with confidence? :rolleyes:

That depends. Does confidence feel anything like nausea?

So what the hell is the point of staying there? Nothing good is going to come out of this so please, give me a reason why we should stay or tell me something good that will come out of Iraq.

You broke it. You fix it.:D

That depends. Does confidence feel anything like nausea?

Let me check... nope it doesn't. Guess the image only brings distress.

You really liked Saddam didn't you?
he wasnt that bad if you think about it. I think he won some award for best medical care among arab nations or something.

he wasnt that bad if you think about it. I think he won some award for best medical care among arab nations or something.

Yeah, that came in handy for all the thousands upon thousands of tourtured prisoners and gas victims. There is a chance of success for iraq. The gov't just needs to have a fair balance of sunni, shiite and kurds and the military needs to break its corrupt culture so they can be the one dominate military force in all corners of the nation. Lebanon had a similar gov't and could have been successful if it was allowed to build its military to the point where it could govern the south.

You really liked Saddam didn't you?
As far as Arab leaders go he was a pretty damn good one.

Best case scenario is probably a new secular dictator, but I'm not holding my breath for that to happen. Great leaders like Saddam Hussein don't come around every day.

He's still alive, you know...just launch a coup, eliminate that joke of a democratic government, give him a few billion dollars for his trouble and for his kids, sign some arms and oil deals and get him back in power. We'll even pay to restore his palaces and infrastructure; once he's rearmed and back in control, just a year or so of cruise control and we're out of there. Iraq's orderly again, oil is flowing abundantly, the Iraqi economy is humming and, most importantly, we're out of there for good.

He's still alive, you know...just launch a friendly coup, give him a few billion dollars for his trouble, sign some arms and oil deals and get him back in power. We'll even pay to restore his palaces; once he's rearmed and back in control, just a year or so of cruise control and we're out of there. Iraq's orderly again, oil is flowing, and we're out of there.

We killed both of his sons. You don't kill a man's children and expect him to become loyal and friendly to you.

We killed both of his sons. You don't kill a man's children and expect him to become loyal and friendly to you.

Money talks. Very loudly...especially when it's at the barrel of a gun.

of there. Iraq's orderly again, oil is flowing abundantly, the Iraqi economy is humming and, most importantly, we're out of there for good.

But if oil were flowing, how would oil prices stay so high and how would oil companies make such enormous ammounts of money?

Let's just split the damn country up already!!
The north for the Kurds, the west for the Sunni, and the east for the Shiites, with Baghdad in the middle for all of them!
Enough is enough!!!

[or we could nuke em! ;) ]

Iran . . . has become the regional power.
I wonder why? Maybe because the only person stopping Iran is out of power?

:rolleyes:

(and dont give my shit for ". . ."ing who. it still says Iran is the regional power.)

But if oil were flowing, how would oil prices stay so high and how would oil companies make such enormous ammounts of money?

Ironically, the loss of production in Iraq as a result of the war actually costs oil companies a decent amount of money; even worse, they are unable to invest in the country due to the instability and restrictive laws on foreign investment.

They'd love to invest in Iraq; there's a ton of crude there that could be produced very profitabily and safely. They'd rather be open to Iraq and sacrifice $10/barrel in additional costs and gain the ability to produce billions of barrels in unproven oil.

I wonder why? Maybe because the only person stopping Iran is out of power?

:rolleyes:

(and dont give my shit for ". . ."ing who. it still says Iran is the regional power.)

I'm not arguing with that all. That was part of my point. With Saddam gone there's no counterbalance in the region to Iran.

Democracy in Iraq would be something good to come out of Iraq. Unlike you, I am optimistic and have high hopes for that nation. I do not think that it will become a theocracy.

I have hopes that one day I will be Supreme Dictator of the Universe. However, realistically I acknowledge it's not gonna happen. What does this have to do with Iraq? Well, I have hopes one day Iraq will be a quiet, gentle, moderate liberal democracy, however...

Democracy in Iraq would be something good to come out of Iraq. Unlike you, I am optimistic and have high hopes for that nation. I do not think that it will become a theocracy.

So why the negative attitude?
Because Democracy is not, in any way, shape or form, good for Iraq, and it's been bombed into a third-world country?

Let's just split the damn country up already!!
The north for the Kurds, the west for the Sunni, and the east for the Shiites, with Baghdad in the middle for all of them!
Enough is enough!!!

[or we could nuke em! ;) ]
You are astonishingly stupid.

You are astonishingly stupid.

Seconded.

Democracy in Iraq would be something good to come out of Iraq. Unlike you, I am optimistic and have high hopes for that nation. I do not think that it will become a theocracy.

So why the negative attitude?

Becuase a true democracy isnt a realistic attitude.

You cant take a country that has NEVER had a democracy, and force one into existance.

The people arent ready for it, and half of them dont want it, even if you could force it.

The only thing to do is finish training an Iraqi defense force, and get the hell out of a place that we did not, do not, and never will have any real business in.

Democracy in Iraq would be something good to come out of Iraq. Unlike you, I am optimistic and have high hopes for that nation. I do not think that it will become a theocracy.

So why the negative attitude?

Because you can't bomb the shit out of a country and then expect them to like you (or your system) for it later.

Democracy in Iraq would be something good to come out of Iraq. Unlike you, I am optimistic and have high hopes for that nation. I do not think that it will become a theocracy.

So why the negative attitude?

It will become a Theocracy. The Shi'ites want a Theocracy. But for the Sunnis and Kurds the future of Iraq will be hell.

If it was a Nation in Nationstates it will turn out to be "Tyranny by Majority"
Opressive Laws will be passed in the name of Allah. Clerics will run the country and kill anyone who disagrees, basicly Iraq will be little Iran. Which sucks for women and those who are not Shites.

Because you can't bomb the shit out of a country and then expect them to like you (or your system) for it later.

We didn't "bomb the shit" out of it, as you so poetically state. We used precision missiles to attack specific targets while taking care to leave Iraq's civilian and economic infrastructure unscathed. Most Iraqi civilians preferred the US occupation over Saddam's regime in the early days following the invasion -- they looked quite happy when toppling the statue of Saddam. Unfortunately, we did not commit sufficient troops to Iraq and the situation quickly deteriorated. First there was a Sunni insurgency, then the Sunnis took to killing Shias. That sparked perpetual violence between the two sects, which led to a more unfavourable opinion towards the US. That was our mistake. However, we did set up a democracy in Iraq, and now all we have to do is continue to train the Iraqi army and security forces. We are rapidly reaching that goal, too. Currently, our plan is to have 2 more Iraqi-controlled divisions ready each month. I'm sure that the situation in Iraq and its economy will improve when the current crisis burns itself out. Eventually, they terrorists will be contained, the government will be able to write legislation that will be accepted by all Iraq, and it will once more be a beacon of freedom in the Middle East. That's the best case scenario, and the more realistic one in my opinion. That is, unless Democrats seize control of the government before the mission is accomplished.

Begoner21;11661664']We didn't "bomb the shit" out of it, as you so poetically state. We used precision missiles to attack specific targets while taking care to leave Iraq's civilian and economic infrastructure unscathed. Most Iraqi civilians preferred the US occupation over Saddam's regime in the early days following the invasion -- they looked quite happy when toppling the statue of Saddam. Unfortunately, we did not commit sufficient troops to Iraq and the situation quickly deteriorated. First there was a Sunni insurgency, then the Sunnis took to killing Shias. That sparked perpetual violence between the two sects, which led to a more unfavourable opinion towards the US. That was our mistake. However, we did set up a democracy in Iraq, and now all we have to do is continue to train the Iraqi army and security forces. We are rapidly reaching that goal, too. Currently, our plan is to have 2 more Iraqi-controlled divisions ready each month. I'm sure that the situation in Iraq and its economy will improve when the current crisis burns itself out. Eventually, they terrorists will be contained, the government will be able to write legislation that will be accepted by all Iraq, and it will once more be a beacon of freedom in the Middle East. That's the best case scenario, and the more realistic one in my opinion. That is, unless Democrats seize control of the government before the mission is accomplished.

Youre either stoned, foolish, or a hopeless right-wing idealist.

Wich is it?

Youre either stoned, foolish, or a hopeless right-wing idealist.

Wich is it?

Nah, just a realist. As long as we don't cut-and-run, that's what's going to happen. Bush said it millions of times: "defeat is not an option." There you go -- the only option is success, therefore we'll succeed.

Begoner21;11661726']Nah, just a realist. As long as we don't cut-and-run, that's what's going to happen. Bush said it millions of times: "defeat is not an option." There you go -- the only option is success, therefore we'll succeed.

...

*blinks*

Wow....

Just.... wow.

Begoner21;11661664']We didn't "bomb the shit" out of it, as you so poetically state. We used precision missiles to attack specific targets while taking care to leave Iraq's civilian and economic infrastructure unscathed.
Have a look at Fallujah. Tell me that was caused by precision missles, rather than mass artillery fire and judicious use of WP and MK77, as well as conventional bombing.
Most Iraqi civilians preferred the US occupation over Saddam's regime in the early days following the invasion -- they looked quite happy when toppling the statue of Saddam. Unfortunately, we did not commit sufficient troops to Iraq and the situation quickly deteriorated.
No, soldiers do not make people happy. Remember this.

What actually happened was that people were like "heh, Saddam's gone" followed by "Ah right... now we see that Saddam may have been the right leader for our land after all".
First there was a Sunni insurgency, then the Sunnis took to killing Shias. That sparked perpetual violence between the two sects, which led to a more unfavourable opinion towards the US.
And obviously, the amount of troops in Iraq doesn't correlate to the resistance level there...
That was our mistake.
It was all a fucking large mistake.
However, we did set up a democracy in Iraq
Fan-bloody-tastic!

And do, pray, tell what the Iraqi government has done to aid its people?
and now all we have to do is continue to train the Iraqi army and security forces.
And apologise, and rebuild their infrastructure, and leave them with plenty of money, and reinstate Saddam if they like, and promise never to interfere again, and say that they can price their oil in Euros if they like.
We are rapidly reaching that goal, too. Currently, our plan is to have 2 more Iraqi-controlled divisions ready each month.
Woohoo more cannon fodder for the freedom fighters in Baghdad, eh?
I'm sure that the situation in Iraq and its economy will improve when the current crisis burns itself out.
Seeing as that will be "never", you are correct!
Eventually, they terrorists will be contained
I thought that the Iraqi death squads already were 'containing' them, no?
the government will be able to write legislation that will be accepted by all Iraq
Yes, they actually did have a good constitution to put to the Iraqi people, but the US rejected it because it said that Iraq had the sole claim to its own oil.
and it will once more be a beacon of freedom in the Middle East.
Like it was under Saddam, you mean?
That's the best case scenario, and the more realistic one in my opinion.
A more realistic one would be that the Archangel Gabriel swoops down and kisses everyone on the head, and they all make up and love each other very much.
That is, unless Democrats seize control of the government before the mission is accomplished.
Those damn commies, eh?

Begoner21;11661726']Nah, just a realist. As long as we don't cut-and-run, that's what's going to happen. Bush said it millions of times: "defeat is not an option." There you go -- the only option is success, therefore we'll succeed.
Yes, but he also said "I know the human and the fish can co-exist peacefully", is he really an accurate source of information?

Have a look at Fallujah. Tell me that was caused by precision missles, rather than mass artillery fire and judicious use of WP and MK77, as well as conventional bombing.

Fallujah was a stronghold of resistance fighters -- it was also an urban area, which made it very hard for US soldiers to avoid civilian casualties. However, they took every precaution to not cause undue damage. They let all non-militants exit the city prior to the bombardment. Nonetheless, 83 US soldiers died in the battle, despite all that firepower. It is not the fault of the US that insurgents were holed up in civilian houses; the US had no choice but to kill the rebels, even if they destroyed some private property in the process.

No, soldiers do not make people happy. Remember this. What actually happened was that people were like "heh, Saddam's gone" followed by "Ah right... now we see that Saddam may have been the right leader for our land after all".

While soldiers may not make people happy, they may indirectly cause the happiness of many by removing a genocidal dictator who killed tens of thousands of his own people. Only the Iraqis who were in power or the very few who benefited from Saddam's rule think he was the "right leader" -- the rest consider him an inhuman maniac.

And obviously, the amount of troops in Iraq doesn't correlate to the resistance level there...

Of course the amount of troops is correlated to the resistance level -- or, more accurately, the amount of troops per 100 Iraqi civilians.

It was all a fucking large mistake.

It was the right decision -- the only mistake was sending in too few troops to secure the peace.

Fan-bloody-tastic! And do, pray, tell what the Iraqi government has done to aid its people?

The Iraqi government does not have much power to enforce the laws that really matter given the state of sectarian crisis in the country.

Woohoo more cannon fodder for the freedom fighters in Baghdad, eh?

One man's "freedom fighter" is a sane man's "butcher of civilians," as the idiom goes. They are not freedom fighters -- if the fight the Iraqi security forces, they are fighting against freedom. The only way Iraq will be truly free is if they have an army that can secure their country and reinstate a rule of law.

Seeing as that will be "never", you are correct!

Actually, the population is declining in Iraq -- more people die than are born each day. It is physically impossible for this to go on forever. Anyway, people will lose the will to fight long before that happens.

I thought that the Iraqi death squads already were 'containing' them, no?

The Iraqi death squads do contain terrorists, but they are not containing terrorists.

Like it was under Saddam, you mean?

No, like it was a long, long time ago, centuries back.

Those damn commies, eh?

Finally, one thing I can agree with.

Begoner21;11661940']Fallujah was a stronghold of resistance fighters -- it was also an urban area, which made it very hard for US soldiers to avoid civilian casualties. However, they took every precaution to not cause undue damage. They let all non-militants exit the city prior to the bombardment. Nonetheless, 83 US soldiers died in the battle, despite all that firepower. It is not the fault of the US that insurgents were holed up in civilian houses; the US had no choice but to kill the rebels, even if they destroyed some private property in the process.
If it was too hard to avoid civilian casualties, then why the hell did they bother in the first place?

Killing civilians only helps the freedom fighters gain in their resolve and influence, can't you see that?
While soldiers may not make people happy, they may indirectly cause the happiness of many by removing a genocidal dictator who killed tens of thousands of his own people. Only the Iraqis who were in power or the very few who benefited from Saddam's rule think he was the "right leader" -- the rest consider him an inhuman maniac.
You've shot yourself in the foot here.

They got the guy, huzzah, so why did they need more boots on the ground?

Oh and actually he was the right leader considering the adverse circumstances of the country and indeed of the region in general.
Of course the amount of troops is correlated to the resistance level -- or, more accurately, the amount of troops per 100 Iraqi civilians.
However the fuck you want to tally it up, more troops = more resistance.
It was the right decision -- the only mistake was sending in too few troops to secure the peace.
You can't secure peace at the barrel of a gun, for crying out loud, how well has that worked in any warzones the US has been in in the last 50 years?
The Iraqi government does not have much power to enforce the laws that really matter given the state of sectarian crisis in the country.
No, it's due to it being utter crap since it was set up so that a thin veneer of "freedom to the Iraqi people" could smokescreen the absolute failure to find any WMDs, and because the Iraqis are pretty new to democracy - especially a system so intrinsically weak as a proportional representation.
One man's "freedom fighter" is a sane man's "butcher of civilians," as the idiom goes.
I think you'll find it's "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."
They are not freedom fighters -- if the fight the Iraqi security forces, they are fighting against freedom. The only way Iraq will be truly free is if they have an army that can secure their country and reinstate a rule of law.
Martial law is not a state of freedom. Hence people fighting against it are freedom fighters.
Actually, the population is declining in Iraq -- more people die than are born each day.
For the moment...
It is physically impossible for this to go on forever.
At the current birth rates, without foreigners in the country...
Anyway, people will lose the will to fight long before that happens.
Do you know nothing of quite how much the Sunnis and Shi'ites hate each other, and how much everyone hates the Kurds?
The Iraqi death squads do contain terrorists, but they are not containing terrorists.
No they don't contain terrorists, you're right, Baghdad is a warzone, and they are an absolute blight on any claims that the Iraqi government has of being freedom loving...
No, like it was a long, long time ago, centuries back.
Mesopotamia was not very progressive...
Finally, one thing I can agree with.
What, sarcasm?

I say a reasonably stable Democracy will be possible though there will be allot of peacekeeping to do in the future hopefully Iraq will stay reasonably liberal for the region as well.

Now if the coalition leaves Iraq the country will be torn to pieces and the only real peace will come if Iran decides to invade (which I doubt the west would be too eager to allow)

Though I’ve always been an optimist

Begoner21;11661726']Nah, just a realist. As long as we don't cut-and-run, that's what's going to happen. Bush said it millions of times: "defeat is not an option." There you go -- the only option is success, therefore we'll succeed.

So, you trust this president implicitly, do you?

You DO realize that Iraq is in a state of near-civil war, right?

Do you think that any kind of prolonged military presence in Iraq is going to have any kind of positive effect on the citizens?

Or will they continue to look at us as an occupying force?

Our own soldiers say the same things, "You can trust any Iraqi soldier, becuase their first loyalties are to thier religion, and more and more of them are drawn into the jyhadist mentality, everyday."

The reason Bush keeps saying what he does is because he wants people like you to maintain support for his particular agenda in Iraq, an agenda, wich has up to this point, failed utterly.

Your loyalty is misplaced, and frankly, wasted on Bush.
Instead, you should support the idea of correcting his mistakes, and making sure America's future is well-maintained.

If it was too hard to avoid civilian casualties, then why the hell did they bother in the first place?

It wasn't "too hard" to avoid civilian casualties -- I doubt Saddam cared about civilian casualties when he was gassing the Kurds. We told all non-militants to leave Fallujah prior to the commencement of the bombardment, and even then we only targeted militants. If they died, it was because they were too fucking stupid to leave.

Killing civilians only helps the freedom fighters gain in their resolve and influence, can't you see that?

Freedom fighters? No, killing civilians helps the anti-freedom fighters gain resolve and influence. That's why we don't intentionally kill civilians -- we have killed exrtemely few civilians while most have died at the hands of terrorists (yet the media implicity blames US troops nonetheless).

You've shot yourself in the foot here. They got the guy, huzzah, so why did they need more boots on the ground? Oh and actually he was the right leader considering the adverse circumstances of the country and indeed of the region in general.

Do you have any grasp of logic whatsoever? Do you watch the news at all? Due to an insufficient troop presense, Iraq is in a state of bitter sectarian crisis. If we had even less troops, not to mention no troops at all, it would have been a fucking civil war. It's not hard to understand. And your assertion that Saddam was the "right" leader for Iraq is as revolting as saying that Hitler was the "right" leader for Germany. He is a genocidal maniac who kills and tortures people who don't agree with him. You think that's good, but when Bush approves the torturing of terrorists, you start waving your civil rights bullshit in his face. Damn hypocrites.

However the fuck you want to tally it up, more troops = more resistance.

No, it's the other way around. More resistance = more troops. We allocate our troops to the areas which have the most resistance in them, not the other way around. Resistance doesn't magically occur when a bunch of US troops are in an area. I'll bet you that if the entire US army went to Iraqi Kurdistan, there'd still be no resistance.

You can't secure peace at the barrel of a gun, for crying out loud, how well has that worked in any warzones the US has been in in the last 50 years?

You cannot secure peace at the barrel of a gun, I agree -- you need hundreds of thousands of guns to secure peace. During WWII, the German resistance against the Allied occupation was almost non-existant. Why? Because we had sufficient troops stationed there. The only other warzone in which we have been in the past 50 years was Vietnam, but that was a guerilla war, so obviously we could not secure peace until we won the war, which we didn't.

No, it's due to it being utter crap since it was set up so that a thin veneer of "freedom to the Iraqi people" could smokescreen the absolute failure to find any WMDs, and because the Iraqis are pretty new to democracy - especially a system so intrinsically weak as a proportional representation.

I don't consider an Iraqi government which allows Iraqi citizens the freedom of choice a "thin veneer." It is the crux of the matter -- Iraqis are now free to vote for whomever they choose. A democracy, no matter which type, is not an "intrinsically weak" system -- it is an intrinsically strong system which represents the will of the people. And democracy is not a complex system at all -- give some credit to the Iraqis. They're not so stupid that they don't know how to vote or what a vote is.

I think you'll find it's "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

Yeah, but that doesn't apply to the situation, here. I prefer my way.

Martial law is not a state of freedom. Hence people fighting against it are freedom fighters.

There is martial law because of the anti-freedom fighters. They are fighting against the Iraqi government's will to impose law and order upon the country. They are not freedom fighters in any way, shape, or form. They are terrorists who seek to revert Iraq to an authoritarian regime and oppress the opposite sect.

Do you know nothing of quite how much the Sunnis and Shi'ites hate each other, and how much everyone hates the Kurds?

No, most Sunnis have nothing against the Shias and vice versa. It is only a very vocal and potent terrorist minority that harbors a grudge. 99% of people in Iraq do not resort to terrorism or kill a member of the opposite sect -- they want peace and stability. Eventually, the next generation will wake up and realize that "hey, why the hell are we fighting each other? Over a minor religious squabble? Get real, guys." That day will come a lot sooner once the Iraqi security forces are good to go.

Mesopotamia was not very progressive...

Yeah, it was only, like, the cradle of civilization. Nothing major, you know.

What, sarcasm?

The only smart thing you said all day.

Begoner21;11664038']It wasn't "too hard" to avoid civilian casualties -- I doubt Saddam cared about civilian casualties when he was gassing the Kurds. We told all non-militants to leave Fallujah prior to the commencement of the bombardment, and even then we only targeted militants. If they died, it was because they were too fucking stupid to leave.
Or were unable to leave to do old people in their family being unable to move, or their friends and relatives being ill, or the threat of bombings on the roads, or not owning a car, or a whole load of things.
Freedom fighters? No, killing civilians helps the anti-freedom fighters gain resolve and influence.
Seemingly not, I think you'll find, otherwise they wouldn't bother doing it.
That's why we don't intentionally kill civilians -- we have killed exrtemely few civilians
The casualty figures do not agree with you here.
while most have died at the hands of terrorists
Yes, because they're trying to appal the US public so that it gets its troops pulled out of the area...

This is basic geurilla fighting... you weaken the resolve of your opponents, even if you don't actually kill too many of them, if you make them, basically, mentally unstable, then you win.

See Vietnam. Or Somalia.
(yet the media implicity blames US troops nonetheless).
Aye, damn the liberal media, and the fact that you only have to watch it if you like to hear a non-conservative side of the news in the US, eh?
Do you have any grasp of logic whatsoever?
I certainly do, mine is just the polar opposite of yours...
Do you watch the news at all?
Generally about 2 hours a day of EuroNews, yeah. I don't watch Faux News except for a laugh.
Due to an insufficient troop presense, Iraq is in a state of bitter sectarian crisis.
Due to Iraq being a democracy, and the pressure being taken off all of the groups involved because the US is quite willing to let its enemies kill each other, there is a bitter sectarian crisis...
If we had even less troops, not to mention no troops at all, it would have been a fucking civil war.
It is a bloody civil war in Iraq, and nothing else!
It's not hard to understand.
You're making that pretty hard to believe!
And your assertion that Saddam was the "right" leader for Iraq is as revolting as saying that Hitler was the "right" leader for Germany.
No it isn't, because the circumstances were totally different you silly twat.

Germany at the time - in a poor state financially, with hatred towards the Jews under the surface, and Gypsies not being looked upon too favourably either, but it's pretty quiet.

This does not need a horrible dictator...

Iraq at the time - In quite a good state financially, although the war with Iran isn't helping, hatred between the Muslim sects, and hatred towards the Kurds from everyone in the country.

This needs someone to pacify the whole damn thing - Saddam is that man.
He is a genocidal maniac who kills and tortures people who don't agree with him.
So are both George Bushes...
You think that's good, but when Bush approves the torturing of terrorists
Again, different circumstances.

Torturing suspects = bad and wrong, not in any way, shape or form in order.

Torturing one person in a town to get the point across that carbombings will not be tolerated, and that everyone should try to get along as best they can - terrible also, but much more understandable.
you start waving your civil rights bullshit in his face. Damn hypocrites.
Did Saddam ever, ever try to take the moral high ground and claim that his nation was the most honourable and free in the world, over torture?

No...

Is Bush trying to take the moral high ground and such over torture?

Yes...
No, it's the other way around. More resistance = more troops.
We allocate our troops to the areas which have the most resistance in them, not the other way around. Resistance doesn't magically occur when a bunch of US troops are in an area.
Yes it does, from people in their homes who are not interested in having the US army anywhere near their families and property...
I'll bet you that if the entire US army went to Iraqi Kurdistan, there'd still be no resistance.
I'll bet you that when that did happen, the US and UK troops got fired upon, I know this because a friend of my father's was in the UK forces in the area.

And Martial Law restrictions are the most stringent by far in the north, that's where people will get shot on sight if out after a certain time with no questions asked.
You cannot secure peace at the barrel of a gun, I agree -- you need hundreds of thousands of guns to secure peace. During WWII, the German resistance against the Allied occupation was almost non-existant. Why? Because we had sufficient troops stationed there.
Or possibly "Because most of the German population was concentrated in the East, and the Soviets were simply killing everyone", or indeed "Because they knew they were just going to lose".

And there was resistance after the war, in the shape of the Wolverines.
The only other warzone in which we have been in the past 50 years was Vietnam, but that was a guerilla war, so obviously we could not secure peace until we won the war, which we didn't.
The same goes for Korea, even though that wasn't even a guerilla war - and what makes you think that Iraq isn't a guerilla war?

The freedom fighters aren't exactly going in wide lines of fire, with fixed bayonets and standard bearers toward the US forces, are they?
I don't consider an Iraqi government which allows Iraqi citizens the freedom of choice a "thin veneer."
What the hell do they get to choose about their own lives?
It is the crux of the matter -- Iraqis are now free to vote for whomever they choose.
Once in a while... if they're supported by the US...

And what other elements of democracy do they get?
A democracy, no matter which type, is not an "intrinsically weak" system -- it is an intrinsically strong system which represents the will of the people.
No, your brain is rubbish, and you clearly don't understand the various traits of different government types...

Proportional Representation is extremely democratic, but also very, very weak, because the various parties are always forming different coalitions, and making and breaking alliances, and generally nothing gets done at all.

Governments are also dissolved due to being ineffective very often - see Greece and Italy, for example, in which there are very frequent elections due to the fact that people cannot make and keep alliances in governments for any great length of time, because some key coalition member wants this or that policy to be a part of their coalition's manifesto.

Now do, pray tell, tell me of any decisions other than who's in control of a tiny area of the Green Zone in Baghdad that the government and people have actually made?

What does the Iraqi Government... well... govern, other than a tiny area of the capital?

Not a fucking thing... it can't even rule over the capital.

It's got about as much influence as the German government had in April 1945 - two small buildings and that's it.
And democracy is not a complex system at all -- give some credit to the Iraqis. They're not so stupid that they don't know how to vote or what a vote is.
It's not that they're "stupid" or whatever, it's more that they might not be acclimatised fully to the ideas of democracy.

They also don't care... at all... see the very low voter turn out.

But if you'd prefer to continue whatever is currenty flowing from Cheney's notebook to Bush's mouth, flying in the face of the facts, then fair enough.
Yeah, but that doesn't apply to the situation, here. I prefer my way.
Yes it most certainly does.
There is martial law because of the anti-freedom fighters.
No, there is martial law because it makes the job of the US and Iraqi army easier because if anyone says anything against them, they just send in the death squads.

This does not of a democratic, lovely government smack.

It sounds more like the Stasi and their methods.
They are fighting against the Iraqi government's will to impose law and order upon the country.
Yeah... that is correct... that's because the Iraqi government's idea of law and order is very similar to that of Saddam's, but with less torture and more killing people... They are not freedom fighters in any way, shape, or form. They are terrorists who seek to revert Iraq to an authoritarian regime and oppress the opposite sect.
Martial law is not a state of freedom, hence people fighting against it are freedom fighters...

And possibly they just know what they're talking about, as opposed to you how reckons that Saddam = a baddie and anything else = great.
No, most Sunnis have nothing against the Shias and vice versa.
A question arises - have you ever met a Sunni Muslim or a Shi'ite and talked to them about how they feel about the other sect?

Because there is a kind of antipathy much stronger than the Protestant / Catholic devide, and is felt by most people of both groups.
It is only a very vocal and potent terrorist minority that harbors a grudge.
No, it's only a very vocal group of people that is heard on TV, for most people it's there, under the surface, but not that vocal.
99% of people in Iraq do not resort to terrorism or kill a member of the opposite sect -- they want peace and stability.
How the hell can you possibly know?
Eventually, the next generation will wake up and realize that "hey, why the hell are we fighting each other? Over a minor religious squabble? Get real, guys."
You're a know-nothing optimist.

Learn a little about what's going on. Don't just listen to Bush, he spouts utter crap.
That day will come a lot sooner once the Iraqi security forces are good to go.
You can't fight ideas with bullets, so I don't see how they'll help...

"They're having an argument - kill 'em both!" will be the order of the proceedings methinks.
Yeah, it was only, like, the cradle of civilization. Nothing major, you know.
I think you'll find it wasn't, that award would have to go to the Moors in Al-Andalus.

Democratising a country/region where many different ethnic/linguistic/religious groups reside, held together by a tough and brutish regime will inevitably lead to sectarian violence. This does not mean promoting democracy is wrong. The long march to democracy in the Balkans following Tito's death was marred by ethnic cleansing, and the collapse of Yugoslavia into seperate and hostile ethnic states. The long march to multi-racial democracy in South Africa was marred by a tremendous increase in violence among non-state actors from the 1980s onward. The transition to democracy following the end of Suharto's reign in Indonesia similarly was racked by ethnic violence (first pograms against the Chinese during the Asian financial crisis, followed by oppression in East Timor). This does not mean Communist dictatorship, Apartheid, or Strong-man Crony Capitalism are preferable to democracy for those countries. Of course the former ruling elite are unhappy with their fall from grace, but if the inhabitants of those nations really wanted a return to the past, they would vote for political parties that promise this. Yet they do not.
As ethnically diverse authoritarian lands become democratic, we should expect at least a decade of violence. It is unfortunate, but it is a reality that has been repeated across the former soviet union to south-eastern Europe to sub-saharan Africa and Asia. Rather than wish brutes onto newly free populations, the international community should provide free peoples with the support they need to stay free.