NationStates Jolt Archive

The story just broke on the New York Times website (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/30/world/middleeast/30policy.html?hp&ex=1164862800&en=1b8f934bb873891b&ei=5094&partner=homepage). Apparently, the ten members unanimously agreed that a gradual withdraw from the country should be carried out soon, possibly as soon as next year -- although they didn't go as far as offering a definite timetable. Also left unclear was the nature of the proposed withdrawal -- whether troops would be redeployed around the world, brought home, or merely stationed at the borders and act as a rapid-response force for any serious sectarian violence. The full report will be released December 6th.

So, while it remains to be seen whether Bush will actually follow the group's expert, well-researched advice, it is at least a sign that some parts of our government are beginning to admit that we need to get the hell out of there.

Thoughts?

This Iraq situation is kind of like Chernobyl: the consequences are going to suck regardless of our actions.

Doesn't matter what they say. Bush has said more than once, leaving is losing, so we won't leave. Whoever's president in 2009 will be dealing with this, because Congress is limited in what they can do. Short of defunding the military, they can't really force Bush's hand, and Bush has already shown his willingness to ignore whatever Congress says via signing statements.

The son of a bitch ought to be impeached.

Doesn't matter what they say. Bush has said more than once, leaving is losing, so we won't leave. Whoever's president in 2009 will be dealing with this, because Congress is limited in what they can do. Short of defunding the military, they can't really force Bush's hand, and Bush has already shown his willingness to ignore whatever Congress says via signing statements.

What if congress passes laws saying that the prez can't send troops into combat zone? Say,overturning laws they have passed giving him the authority? Maybe the SCOTUS can be in on that and say that those laws in favour of exec. power are unconstitutional? Of course, thats just me day dreaming again, cuz I know it won't happen. :(

If we are to leave, what Iraq needs is a strongman dictator to keep order. If only we had one lying around in a middle eastern jail somewhere.

Seriously though, after smashing it up, it's really not cricket to just leave it all broken. So I guess we'll be there forever, or until someone figures out how to fix it.

If we are to leave, what Iraq needs is a strongman dictator to keep order. If only we had one lying around in a middle eastern jail somewhere.

Seriously though, after smashing it up, it's really not cricket to just leave it all broken. So I guess we'll be there forever, or until someone figures out how to fix it.

[flag waving overzealous Patriot] I say we turn the whole damn thing into a parking lot! Or just n00k the place! Teach them Abu a lesson!
[/flag waving overzealous Patriot]

:rolleyes:

What if congress passes laws saying that the prez can't send troops into combat zone? Say,overturning laws they have passed giving him the authority? Maybe the SCOTUS can be in on that and say that those laws in favour of exec. power are unconstitutional? Of course, thats just me day dreaming again, cuz I know it won't happen. :(

Well, first of all, I don't see the Senate allowing that kind of legislation through--you'd have to hold the entire Democratic caucus together including Lieberman plus pull 9 Republicans to beat a filibuster, and that's probably not going to happen.

But secondly, assuming they could get the legislation passed and overturn a veto, I don't think they win the SCOTUS battle over signing statements. Why? Because Sam Alito was one of the people who came up with the fucking idea in the first place, and I don't see Kennedy standing up on it, sadly enough.

Well, first of all, I don't see the Senate allowing that kind of legislation through--you'd have to hold the entire Democratic caucus together including Lieberman plus pull 9 Republicans to beat a filibuster, and that's probably not going to happen.

But secondly, assuming they could get the legislation passed and overturn a veto, I don't think they win the SCOTUS battle over signing statements. Why? Because Sam Alito was one of the people who came up with the fucking idea in the first place, and I don't see Kennedy standing up on it, sadly enough.

And thats why I said I was day dreaming:p

[flag waving overzealous Patriot] I say we turn the whole damn thing into a parking lot! Or just n00k the place! Teach them Abu a lesson!
[/flag waving overzealous Patriot]

:rolleyes:

It's not flag waving. You just don't break something then run away.

It's not flag waving. You just don't break something then run away.

We did in Vietnam. And we will in both Afghanistan and Iraq--mark my words--and we will be hated in those regions for generations.

It's not flag waving. You just don't break something then run away.


Well we seem to run away from the country we have broken the most... our own.

We did in Vietnam. And we will in both Afghanistan and Iraq--mark my words--and we will be hated in those regions for generations.

Maybe, maybe not.

We're not hated in Viet Nam.

Of course troops should be withdrawn. Get out of my homeland, murderers!

We did in Vietnam. And we will in both Afghanistan and Iraq--mark my words--and we will be hated in those regions for generations.

The abandonment of south vietnam was an utter disgrace.

Unlike vietnam however, abandoning Iraq and Afganistan won't just cause the people in those regions to hate the US for a very long time, but also a great number of other 'allies'. The US dragged plenty of others into this project as part of the coalition of the 'willing'. It can't unilateraly, now, just decide its had enough of the project and take its ball home.

Maybe, maybe not.

We're not hated in Viet Nam.
Not universally, but there's still a lot of resentment. A friend of mine--fellow faculty member--his boyfriend is Vietnamese and he's done two Fulbrights over there, and both of them talk about how there's still some hard feelings in a lot of the country.

The abandonment of south vietnam was an utter disgrace.

Unlike vietnam however, abandoning Iraq and Afganistan won't just cause the people in those regions to hate the US for a very long time, but also a great number of other 'allies'. The US dragged plenty of others into this project as part of the coalition of the 'willing'. It can't unilateraly, now, just decide its had enough of the project and take its ball home.

Well, most of "the willing" didn't actually send much in the way of troops, and a lot of them have withdrawn now. I'm pretty sure Blair wouldn't mind having an excuse to get his guys out of there.

Not universally, but there's still a lot of resentment. A friend of mine--fellow faculty member--his boyfriend is Vietnamese and he's done two Fulbrights over there, and both of them talk about how there's still some hard feelings in a lot of the country.

Some of the older ones bear a grudge, but most Vietnamese genuinely like Americans. Granted, they have reservations about our government, but they like our people.

The abandonment of south vietnam was an utter disgrace.

Unlike vietnam however, abandoning Iraq and Afganistan won't just cause the people in those regions to hate the US for a very long time, but also a great number of other 'allies'. The US dragged plenty of others into this project as part of the coalition of the 'willing'. It can't unilateraly, now, just decide its had enough of the project and take its ball home.
You are already hated in Iraq for your brutal slaughter of innocent civillians. Whether you leave or not, my people will hate you. But the longer you stay, the longer you will be hated.

Well, most of "the willing" didn't actually send much in the way of troops, and a lot of them have withdrawn now. I'm pretty sure Blair wouldn't mind having an excuse to get his guys out of there.

That's not true for afganistan. (Which the US doesn't seem to care about much anyway, despite it being far worse than Iraq all things considered).

And the point is the US didn't enter this alone. Other people's names were on the project, with the expectation that it would be made right and the US was steadfast in its commitment. If the US had just wanted to smash a country up on its own it should have invaded paraguay.

Solution is simple: Have the Iraqis vote if they want us out or not. If not, we stay, it's justified "democratically". If they want us out, then at least when we do tuck our tails between our legs and run, and the proverbial outhouse detonates into a fountain of sectarian violence, we can't be blamed. (They wanted us out.)

Cold, Hard Fact: Democracy WON'T WORK, they need DICTATORSHIP again. They need a hard-line leader, order, and martial law, not the freedom to lash out at one another like they have. Democracy is the work of decades of money, sweat, and LOTS of blood, not a few president's terms. When it boils down to it, The Iraqi people will vote safety over freedom, just as the Russians have done. Stability first, wishful ideals later.

You are already hated in Iraq for your brutal slaughter of innocent civillians. Whether you leave or not, my people will hate you. But the longer you stay, the longer you will be hated.

Aw, you hated us anyway. It's not really a consideration.

Aw, you hated us anyway. It's not really a consideration.

Really? I could have sworn all your politicians were saying the soldiers' job was to 'win the hearts and minds of the people'.

Really? I could have sworn all your politicians were saying the soldiers' job was to 'win the hearts and minds of the people'.

One can't win the hearts and minds of the arrogant and close-minded.

Solution is simple: Have the Iraqis vote if they want us out or not. If not, we stay, it's justified "democratically". If they want us out, then at least when we do tuck our tails between our legs and run, and the proverbial outhouse detonates into a fountain of sectarian violence, we can't be blamed. (They wanted us out.)

Cold, Hard Fact: Democracy WON'T WORK, they need DICTATORSHIP again. They need a hard-line leader, order, and martial law, not the freedom to lash out at one another like they have. Democracy is the work of decades of money, sweat, and LOTS of blood, not a few president's terms. When it boils down to it, The Iraqi people will vote safety over freedom, just as the Russians have done. Stability first, wishful ideals later.

I wholeheartedly agree with you. Democracy would be nice, but it woul be much nicer to have people not being murdered in their beds. The truth is, you will need to do more than shoot people and pull down some statues to acieve freedom, and America doesn't seem to know how to do anything else

One can't win the hearts and minds of the arrogant and close-minded.


You can't win the heart and minds of the people that are dead and suffering because of a group of white rich men wanting to make a few extra bucks pressured a nation into ousting a leader of a sovereign nation, and has installed a system which is not suitable for their people, but only suitable for those rich white men's pocketbooks.

One can't win the hearts and minds of the arrogant and close-minded.

Arrogance such as the forcing of one's own ideals on others, whether they like it or not, then killing everyone who doesn't like it and calling them terrorists, then having the sheer gall to hide behind the farce of liberating the country? That is arrogance greater than anyone outside America could manage.

Solution is simple: Have the Iraqis vote if they want us out or not. If not, we stay, it's justified "democratically". If they want us out, then at least when we do tuck our tails between our legs and run, and the proverbial outhouse detonates into a fountain of sectarian violence, we can't be blamed. (They wanted us out.)

I posted this about a month ago, and I think it's quite enlightening about Bush's real motives in Iraq:

Fact #1 (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/16/iraq.poll/index.html): 64% of Americans oppose the war in Iraq.

Fact #2 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601721.html): A majority (65-71%) of Iraqis want US forces to pull out at once.

Fact #3: Bush claims that he supports the spread of democracy around the world (which would include, I assume, America and Iraq).

So, Bush says he wants to spread democracy, but does so by ignoring the majority opinion both in his own country and in the country he's trying to "liberate". Somebody please explain this. Don't even justify, just explain. I'd love to find at least a little logic behind this apparent paradox.

Link to thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=503462).

You can't win the heart and minds of the people that are dead and suffering because of a group of white rich men wanting to make a few extra bucks pressured a nation into ousting a leader of a sovereign nation, and has installed a system which is not suitable for their people, but only suitable for those rich white men's pocketbooks.

If you want to bring the rich into this, let's add in that tiny factor of the "rich arab and persian men" sitting in Damascus and Tehran who spend their ruthlessly earned currency to their agents to sneak into Iraq and help insight the sectarian violence that's tearing the country apart with or without the US.

The only suitable system is a hard-line leader, someone whom the people respect and whom can quickly and efficiently restore order through martial law and a few sacrificed freedoms. The only thing that's going to end the violence is an iron fist from within Iraq, not from without.

One can't win the hearts and minds of the arrogant and close-minded.

I posted this about a month ago, and I think it's quite enlightening about Bush's real motives in Iraq:



Link to thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=503462).

Thank you!

I posted this about a month ago, and I think it's quite enlightening about Bush's real motives in Iraq:



Link to thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=503462).

I posted in that thread! :p +1

Arrogance such as the forcing of one's own ideals on others, whether they like it or not, then killing everyone who doesn't like it and calling them terrorists, then having the sheer gall to hide behind the farce of liberating the country? That is arrogance greater than anyone outside America could manage.

On the contrary, I've never seen a man so arrogant, angry, and close-minded as to blow himself up in the name of extremism, and meaning to kill innocent women and children in the process. The Iraqis are doing a fine job of ending their own lives, "The Coalition of the Willing" (US included) are just spectators in the developing civil war between arrogant and stubborn religious sects.

That's not true for afganistan. (Which the US doesn't seem to care about much anyway, despite it being far worse than Iraq all things considered).

And the point is the US didn't enter this alone. Other people's names were on the project, with the expectation that it would be made right and the US was steadfast in its commitment. If the US had just wanted to smash a country up on its own it should have invaded paraguay.

You're right about Afghanistan, but that's become largely a NATO deal now, more's the pity, because we certainly didn't do the job there we might have, and that was a situation that had broad based support. I mean, I'm as anti-Iraq war as you'l find around this joint and I was all over the move into Afghanistan, even though I didn't trust Bush to be able to find his ass with both hands and a road map. Not even back then, when most were giving him the benefit of the doubt.

If you want to bring the rich into this, let's add in that tiny factor of the "rich arab and persian men" sitting in Damascus and Tehran who spend their ruthlessly earned currency to their agents to sneak into Iraq and help insight the sectarian violence that's tearing the country apart with or without the US.

The only suitable system is a hard-line leader, someone whom the people respect and whom can quickly and efficiently restore order through martial law and a few sacrificed freedoms. The only thing that's going to end the violence is an iron fist from within Iraq, not from without.

I agreee with you completely. Democracy would be nice, but it's not prictical in the short term. We need to break the influence that both America and other Middle East countires have on us and start cleaning up the mess they have both made. The only way to get this done effectively is, sadly, a dictatorship. Maybe when Iraq is stable, we can start working on building a democracy.

If you want to bring the rich into this, let's add in that tiny factor of the "rich arab and persian men" sitting in Damascus and Tehran who spend their ruthlessly earned currency to their agents to sneak into Iraq and help insight the sectarian violence that's tearing the country apart with or without the US.

The only suitable system is a hard-line leader, someone whom the people respect and whom can quickly and efficiently restore order through martial law and a few sacrificed freedoms. The only thing that's going to end the violence is an iron fist from within Iraq, not from without.

And what did the war in Iraq give that one rich leader of that nation? Yah, saddam got a lot out of that. I don't think many arab and persians got anything out of Iraq, except fuel to add to their already buring passion against the west.

The only way to stop violence is to first stop using it ourselves. By causing wars, we only play into the radicals' cause, and add supporters to their groups.

On the contrary, I've never seen a man so arrogant, angry, and close-minded as to blow himself up in the name of extremism, and meaning to kill innocent women and children in the process. The Iraqis are doing a fine job of ending their own lives, "The Coalition of the Willing" (US included) are just spectators in the developing civil war between arrogant and stubborn religious sects.

You are right. I concede that point. However, the coalition of the willing was the catalyst for the beginning of this civil war. I lived in Iraq before my family and I was forced to flee. Before the invasion, it wasn't a bad place. Ys, it had some problems, but no one was blowing themselves up.

Anyway, you are right about the solution. Democracy would be nice, but it's not realistic in the short term.

And what did the war in Iraq give that one rich leader of that nation? Yah, saddam got a lot out of that. I don't think many arab and persians got anything out of Iraq, except fuel to add to their already buring passion against the west.

The only way to stop violence is to first stop using it ourselves. By causing wars, we only play into the radicals' cause, and add supporters to their groups.

I don't see why you two are arguing. As far as I can see, you are in agreement. Or at least, I am in agreement with both of you.

There is no good solution to iraq, but the only two reasonable options seem to be either

A) withdrawing forces and allowing iraq to finish its civil war and seperate into three entities

B) Increase forces and expedite Iraq's seperation into three entities.

There is no good solution to iraq, but the only two reasonable options seem to be either

A) withdrawing forces and allowing iraq to finish its civil war and seperate into three entities

B) Increase forces and expedite Iraq's seperation into three entities.

Problem with B is that we don't really have any other forces we can send.

And what did the war in Iraq give that one rich leader of that nation? Yah, saddam got a lot out of that. I don't think many arab and persians got anything out of Iraq, except fuel to add to their already buring passion against the west.

The only way to stop violence is to first stop using it ourselves. By causing wars, we only play into the radicals' cause, and add supporters to their groups.

Countries like Iran and Syria are winning huge off of the instability of the Sunni and Shiite situation in Iraq. If we leave Iran could probably just sweep in with it's own little version of martial law and easily win the support of the majority religious sect. Imagine, Iraq, satellite of Iran, a perfect place to expand nuclear research, wealth for funding Hezbollah, and one step closer to wiping Israel off the map.

And as I said, the only way to stop the violence is with a strong presence in the Iraqi government. Don't you see it doesn't matter what the US does now? Even if we withdraw the sectarian violence is going to escalate unless the Iraqi government takes charge and presses down on it, hard. They need a well supported leader, regardless of democratic nomination, to play Father and get the kids in line.

Countries like Iran and Syria are winning huge off of the instability of the Sunni and Shiite situation in Iraq. If we leave Iran could probably just sweep in with it's own little version of martial law and easily win the support of the majority religious sect. Imagine, Iraq, satellite of Iran, a perfect place to expand nuclear research, wealth for funding Hezbollah, and one step closer to wiping Israel off the map.

And as I said, the only way to stop the violence is with a strong presence in the Iraqi government. Don't you see it doesn't matter what the US does now? Even if we withdraw the sectarian violence is going to escalate unless the Iraqi government takes charge and presses down on it, hard. They need a well supported leader, regardless of democratic nomination, to play Father and get the kids in line.

And what if we work with regional leaders to help stop the violence? Honestly because of the agression and arrogance of the Bush Admin, we have lost a great opportunity to bring a plausible peace to the middle east. We could make semi allies with Iran, and keep the Shi'ites at rest, and if we can do that the Sunni's will be content, and everyone is happy, and not dead. It might be a very shaky foundation, but it has to start somewhere, right?

You are right. I concede that point. However, the coalition of the willing was the catalyst for the beginning of this civil war. I lived in Iraq before my family and I was forced to flee. Before the invasion, it wasn't a bad place. Ys, it had some problems, but no one was blowing themselves up.

Anyway, you are right about the solution. Democracy would be nice, but it's not realistic in the short term.

You're absolutely right. Iraq needs the sort of strong military arm it had before the invasion (although not to the extent Saddam carried it.) For a country where Democracy is a foreign import, not a well-studied concept, the tried-and-true system is best. America found itself divided in Civil War a century after it established it's government and constitution, that's the sort of effort in time, money, and blood every country looks at when making the transition to a Democratic system.

And what if we work with regional leaders to help stop the violence? Honestly because of the agression and arrogance of the Bush Admin, we have lost a great opportunity to bring a plausible peace to the middle east. We could make semi allies with Iran, and keep the Shi'ites at rest, and if we can do that the Sunni's will be content, and everyone is happy, and not dead. It might be a very shaky foundation, but it has to start somewhere, right?

I never thought of that. It just might work. Of course, Bush and co. will never do it beause they don't make any money out of it. As far as I can see, the only chance of anything like that happening is if Hilary Clinton wins in 2008. And most peopl I know would not be willing for their country to ally themselves with a land ruled by a woman. It's a shame how much the Qu'ran has been misinterpreted.

You're absolutely right. Iraq needs the sort of strong military arm it had before the invasion (although not to the extent Saddam carried it.) For a country where Democracy is a foreign import, not a well-studied concept, the tried-and-true system is best. America found itself divided in Civil War a century after it established it's government and constitution, that's the sort of effort in time, money, and blood every country looks at when making the transition to a Democratic system.


They had the Iraqi Republican Army, but the US decided to disband it after the war "ended", and thus many of the former soldiers joined indurgencies because of a loss of jobs, and no experience in anything else but war.

And what if we work with regional leaders to help stop the violence? Honestly because of the agression and arrogance of the Bush Admin, we have lost a great opportunity to bring a plausible peace to the middle east. We could make semi allies with Iran, and keep the Shi'ites at rest, and if we can do that the Sunni's will be content, and everyone is happy, and not dead. It might be a very shaky foundation, but it has to start somewhere, right?

But we can't work with the regional leaders, they're too busy resenting us just as the people who elected them. The best we could possibly hope for with Iran is a cold-war style pact. Iran hates us, pure and simple, they did long before Iraq and they will continue to do so. That's why they help fuel the violence in Iraq. Sunnis and Shi'ites will continue their arrogant back-and-forth slaughter because they don't see past it. It's all the resentment of instability, personal loss, and a multitude of other things, wound into one neat zealous package, lashed out at the other side. If you want some insight into what it's like, look at Ireland.

You're absolutely right. Iraq needs the sort of strong military arm it had before the invasion (although not to the extent Saddam carried it.) For a country where Democracy is a foreign import, not a well-studied concept, the tried-and-true system is best. America found itself divided in Civil War a century after it established it's government and constitution, that's the sort of effort in time, money, and blood every country looks at when making the transition to a Democratic system.

As far as I'm aware, Australia has achieved democracy without any sort of civil war.

But we can't work with the regional leaders, they're too busy resenting us just as the people who elected them. The best we could possibly hope for with Iran is a cold-war style pact. Iran hates us, pure and simple, they did long before Iraq and they will continue to do so. That's why they help fuel the violence in Iraq. Sunnis and Shi'ites will continue their arrogant back-and-forth slaughter because they don't see past it. It's all the resentment of instability, personal loss, and a multitude of other things, wound into one neat zealous package, lashed out at the other side. If you want some insight into what it's like, look at Ireland.

We CAN work with the leaders, or at least try. If we try and fail, at least we can make a case to their people about us wanting to make peace, and letting them know their leaders are at fault for any hostilities. That would make any conflicts easier on us.

As far as I'm aware, Australia has achieved democracy without any sort of civil war.

It still took effort and rebellion on their part. Australia was originally a British Colony, and because of it's location and such, was used almost exclusively as a penal colony. A dumping ground for convicts, prostitutes, etc.

America had to rebel against Britain, so did India, and Hong Kong to some extend. Australia had to claim sovereignty as well, although by that point the British were losing claims all over and didn't resist losing them. The struggle in Britain to form parliament and not just have a Monarchy was bloody. The French Revolution was one of the worst by far, as far as human loss is concerned.

Now just take the idea that at least when it happened in Europe, the idea of Democracy and freedom was widely known and supported by the public. How well was Democracy studied in schools or discussed out in the open in Iraq while Saddam was in power?

We CAN work with the leaders, or at least try. If we try and fail, at least we can make a case to their people about us wanting to make peace, and letting them know their leaders are at fault for any hostilities. That would make any conflicts easier on us.

Only problem is if the leaders start working with us, and the people they represent have their usual resentments for us, they'll oust the leaders we support. They'd consider those leaders no better than us for working with us.

Only problem is if the leaders start working with us, and the people they represent have their usual resentments for us, they'll oust the leaders we support. They'd consider those leaders no better than us for working with us.

Would they resent us more for bombing and killing their babies or for trying to stop war?

Only problem is if the leaders start working with us, and the people they represent have their usual resentments for us, they'll oust the leaders we support. They'd consider those leaders no better than us for working with us.

It's their country. Live with it.

Would they resent us more for bombing and killing their babies or for trying to stop war?

They'd resent us most for staying while things got worse at this point. Sectarian violence is responsible for almost all the deaths these days. Iraqis vs. Iraqis. But naturally we'd be blamed for it. We can't stop a war we're not in. We'll just catch flak from both sides and be blamed by both sides when the other does something. Fun isn't it?

It's their country. Live with it.

God forbid they choose to go against OUR will, to detemine their future and gov't:rolleyes:

God forbid they choose to go against OUR will, to detemine their future and gov't:rolleyes:

Who has time for future planning and stability when there's car bombs, IEDs, and C4 backpacks to be made?

They'd resent us most for staying while things got worse at this point. Sectarian violence is responsible for almost all the deaths these days. Iraqis vs. Iraqis. But naturally we'd be blamed for it. We can't stop a war we're not in. We'll just catch flak from both sides and be blamed by both sides when the other does something. Fun isn't it?

Only because we deserve it. They resent us so much already, what difference is a little more going to make? And in case you haven't noticed yet, we have been bombing the shit out of them and killing their babies, among the corpses of the other 200,000 civilians who've been bombed, shot, or tortured and mutilated.
Fun isn't it?
C'mon, let's roll out the "Fuck the Untied States" posters already. ;)

They'd resent us most for staying while things got worse at this point. Sectarian violence is responsible for almost all the deaths these days. Iraqis vs. Iraqis. But naturally we'd be blamed for it. We can't stop a war we're not in. We'll just catch flak from both sides and be blamed by both sides when the other does something. Fun isn't it?


It was a war we sparked though. We deserve blame for that.

Who has time for future planning and stability when there's car bombs, IEDs, and C4 backpacks to be made?
Well, its like this: They see us a foreign power that wants to add them to our empire. It'd be like China invading the US. Naturally, we'd have diff. factions trying to oust the power. But once the foreign power is gone, won't the sides put don't the weapons and try to make a better gov't for their people?

It was a war we sparked though. We deserve blame for that.

Actually, it was a Cold War tension that Saddam kept in check with an iron fist. All it took was giving the Iraqi people freedoms and the benefit of the doubt to set it off, invasion or no.

Well, its like this: They see us a foreign power that wants to add them to our empire. It'd be like China invading the US. Naturally, we'd have diff. factions trying to oust the power. But once the foreign power is gone, won't the sides put don't the weapons and try to make a better gov't for their people?

China invading the US? There's only one way that'd end, Mushroom clouds for everyone.

China invading the US? There's only one way that'd end, Mushroom clouds for everyone.

That was just an example to give you the point I was making. They are defending their lands from us "invaders". They have been liberated from saddam. We told them thats what we were doing, so to stay longer after that goal, it makes us look like liars who want to rule that nation.

That was just an example to give you the point I was making. They are defending their lands from us "invaders". They have been liberated from saddam. We told them thats what we were doing, so to stay longer after that goal, it makes us look like liars who want to rule that nation.

Could have picked a more realistic example... Can't compare Big Nuclear apple invading little apple to Big Nuclear apple invading other Big Nuclear apple. But yeah, I see your point.

Actually, it was a Cold War tension that Saddam kept in check with an iron fist. All it took was giving the Iraqi people freedoms and the benefit of the doubt to set it off, invasion or no.

If that was true, we would've invaded Iraq long ago.

And China.

And North Korea.

And Zimbabwe.

And Russia.

And D.C. ;)

If that was true, we would've invaded Iraq long ago.

And China.

And North Korea.

And Zimbabwe.

And Russia.

And D.C. ;)

I meant the sectarian violence was really tense, but kept in check by Saddam. That wasn't a reference to the -actual- Cold War :p

The abandonment of south vietnam was an utter disgrace.

Unlike vietnam however, abandoning Iraq and Afganistan won't just cause the people in those regions to hate the US for a very long time, but also a great number of other 'allies'. The US dragged plenty of others into this project as part of the coalition of the 'willing'. It can't unilateraly, now, just decide its had enough of the project and take its ball home.

Well, considering that said coalition is crumbling, with England saying that their troops are leaving in the coming year, Poland saying the same thing, and others dropping out as well, there won't be much choice once we have to go it alone.

I meant the sectarian violence was really tense, but kept in check by Saddam. That wasn't a reference to the -actual- Cold War :p

I know, I was talking about the war in general, but I don't understand what you mean in the last sentence. Explanation please? :(

It still took effort and rebellion on their part. Australia was originally a British Colony, and because of it's location and such, was used almost exclusively as a penal colony. A dumping ground for convicts, prostitutes, etc.

America had to rebel against Britain, so did India, and Hong Kong to some extend. Australia had to claim sovereignty as well, although by that point the British were losing claims all over and didn't resist losing them. The struggle in Britain to form parliament and not just have a Monarchy was bloody. The French Revolution was one of the worst by far, as far as human loss is concerned.

Now just take the idea that at least when it happened in Europe, the idea of Democracy and freedom was widely known and supported by the public. How well was Democracy studied in schools or discussed out in the open in Iraq while Saddam was in power?

Sorry I was gone. Hope the topic hasn't died.
Not a whole lot. We learned of its existance, but that's pretty much it. Nobody really wanted to talk about political stuff because there was always this feeling that he was watching you somehow. Saddam Hussein was an evil fascist dictator, but damn he was good at it.

The story just broke on the New York Times website (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/30/world/middleeast/30policy.html?hp&ex=1164862800&en=1b8f934bb873891b&ei=5094&partner=homepage). Apparently, the ten members unanimously agreed that a gradual withdraw from the country should be carried out soon, possibly as soon as next year -- although they didn't go as far as offering a definite timetable. Also left unclear was the nature of the proposed withdrawal -- whether troops would be redeployed around the world, brought home, or merely stationed at the borders and act as a rapid-response force for any serious sectarian violence. The full report will be released December 6th.

So, while it remains to be seen whether Bush will actually follow the group's expert, well-researched advice, it is at least a sign that some parts of our government are beginning to admit that we need to get the hell out of there.

Thoughts?

eh, the group's conclusion differs little from any other politicians... we need to leave, but they offer no timetable for any kind of withdrawal.

kind of being like stuck in a slowly collapsing cave and thinking "i know the situation is getting worse, and i know i need to leave, but when exactly" and then BOOM! the shit hits the fan.

eh, the group's conclusion differs little from any other politicians... we need to leave, but they offer no timetable for any kind of withdrawal.

kind of being like stuck in a slowly collapsing cave and thinking "i know the situation is getting worse, and i know i need to leave, but when exactly" and then BOOM! the shit hits the fan.

Yes, and my family and friends are all bats trapped in the cave and get crushed by shit-covered rocks.

Is it just me or does anyone else think the only reason Bush is sticking it out because he wants the guy after him to do the hard job of fixing it up?

If Bush pulls out and it goes to hell - Bush will be the main guy blamed in history.

If the guy after Bush pulls out and it goes to hell then he takes the fall.
If he stays and it gets even worse then he takes the fall.

Yes, and my family and friends are all bats trapped in the cave and get crushed by shit-covered rocks.

yeah, but if you can imagine this, what about vietnam? i mean, with all of the people killed in that war, imagine the shit-covered rocks people would have to be turning over? i mean, geez, loads of people died there. and then Nixon pulled out...

of course, no one wanted to blame JFK or LBJ because 1) he was dead and 2) everyone loved JFK too much to hate LBJ... mostly. some thought he killed JFK. :p

And then came watergate... :D

yeah, but if you can imagine this, what about vietnam? i mean, with all of the people killed in that war, imagine the shit-covered rocks people would have to be turning over? i mean, geez, loads of people died there. and then Nixon pulled out...

of course, no one wanted to blame JFK or LBJ because 1) he was dead and 2) everyone loved JFK too much to hate LBJ... mostly. some thought he killed JFK. :p

And then came watergate... :D

I'm afraid I didn't follow any of that. I was talking about how most of my family and friends are still in Iraq and many are either dead or missing.

I'm afraid I didn't follow any of that. I was talking about how most of my family and friends are still in Iraq and many are either dead or missing.

i realize that... a whole bunch more people died in Vietnam in a war the US had to pull out of. hell, more people died on one day (The Tet Offensive) than in iraq. thats my point.

as to JFK, he was the one that started sending escalating amounts of "military advisors" into vietnam, which really started the war for America in vietnam. as for the reason why no one blamed him - he was assassinated in '64, years before Nixon proposed "DeVietnamization" (hah) and pulled out troops in Vietnam.

i realize that... a whole bunch more people died in Vietnam in a war the US had to pull out of. hell, more people died on one day (The Tet Offensive) than in iraq. thats my point.

as to JFK, he was the one that started sending escalating amounts of "military advisors" into vietnam, which really started the war for America in vietnam. as for the reason why no one blamed him - he was assassinated in '64, years before Nixon proposed "DeVietnamization" (hah) and pulled out troops in Vietnam.

Aaaaaaah, now I see what you're talking about. Sorry, I don't know why I didn't get it before. Well, yes. That's a good point. But what's watergate?