NationStates Jolt Archive

I understand the desire to say ‘the US got into it, it is their problem’.
However, the implications for an American failure are going to affect everyone, so why are so many people behaving in a petty selfish manner and looking for the US to fail?

Yes, Bush is a simplistic ideologue surrounded by ineffective (being generous there) people who failed to properly prepare or execute the war. Name one nation in the world that has never had an imperfect politician. Unfortunately we had the bad luck not to have had a better president to handle what happened after September 11th, but is laughing at the folly of an American President worth seeing the region descend into chaos?

Short-sighted voters in the US have a mistaken belief that if we just pull all our troops out of the region it will be the end of all troubles. Short-sighted politicians in the rest of the world think that it is not their problem if the US is stuck in a bad position in Iraq. Unfortunately the combination of the two means that unless something miraculous happens, we are going to see some serious problems arising there.

If the US pulls out of Iraq, the whole world is looking at problems – the sectarian violence that will explode between Sunni and Shiite, the Kurdish problem with Turkey (and to a lesser extend with Syria and Iran), Iranian influence backing religious extremists turning southern Iraq into a theocracy without even the illusion of secular democracy that Iranians cling to, all the Sunni states throughout the region scrambling for nuclear weapons of their own to counter Iran… need I go on?

Yes, the US administration mishandled things and did not plan appropriately for what would happen after the invasion. Their concept of diplomacy was little better than an 8 year old watching old John Wayne movies. Even most of the American people agree with you there, but are you all really so petty you are willing to see death and destruction on a massive scale just so you can point out that the US administration made a mistake?

http://static.flickr.com/6/69250266_8c1f5c979c.jpg

The topic implies there's a chance for anything but abject failure. There's not.

Bin Laden and his terrorists became convinced that America was a "paper tiger" (looks fearsome, but is weak) after the whole Lebenon incident in the 1980s. We don't need to encourage said terrorists.

Bin Laden and his terrorists became convinced that America was a "paper tiger" (looks fearsome, but is weak) after the whole Lebenon incident in the 1980s. We don't need to encourage said terrorists.

You don't because they are encouraged by the actions of inept administrations that provide the perfect climate for terrorism to flourish. A climate of chaos is perfect for terrorism to thrive.

Oh my God...we're in a re-run!

The topic implies there's a chance for anything but abject failure. There's not.

Exactly, and the OP seems to want more countries to willingly be sucked into the US vortex of inevitable... OK, present and undeniable failure. Yeah, good luck with that.

I understand the desire to say ‘the US got into it, it is their problem’.
Of course, it's true after all.
However, the implications for an American failure are going to affect everyone, so why are so many people behaving in a petty selfish manner and looking for the US to fail?
What's selfish about expecting of America what we expect of small children, that they clean up their own mess?
Yes, Bush is a simplistic ideologue surrounded by ineffective (being generous there) people who failed to properly prepare or execute the war.
Oh my yes
Name one nation in the world that has never had an imperfect politician.
Why?
Unfortunately we had the bad luck not to have had a better president to handle what happened after September 11th, but is laughing at the folly of an American President worth seeing the region descend into chaos?
Eh, what?
Short-sighted voters in the US have a mistaken belief that if we just pull all our troops out of the region it will be the end of all troubles.
Stupid people are everywhere
Short-sighted politicians in the rest of the world think that it is not their problem if the US is stuck in a bad position in Iraq.
It's not their problem....
Unfortunately the combination of the two means that unless something miraculous happens, we are going to see some serious problems arising there.
Serious problems arising in Iraq you say? You're a few years too late on that one, Nostradamus.
If the US pulls out of Iraq, the whole world is looking at problems – the sectarian violence that will explode between Sunni and Shiite, the Kurdish problem with Turkey (and to a lesser extend with Syria and Iran), Iranian influence backing religious extremists turning southern Iraq into a theocracy without even the illusion of secular democracy that Iranians cling to, all the Sunni states throughout the region scrambling for nuclear weapons of their own to counter Iran… need I go on?
These problems are there already......

Yes, the US administration mishandled things and did not plan appropriately for what would happen after the invasion.
Quite an understatement
Their concept of diplomacy was little better than an 8 year old watching old John Wayne movies.
Indeed
Even most of the American people agree with you there, but are you all really so petty you are willing to see death and destruction on a massive scale just so you can point out that the US administration made a mistake?

People here have been pointing out the mistakes of various administrations for some time, it has yet to cause a single fatality.

Technically, we could easily wipe out al qaeda, so long as nobody cared about massive collateral damage.

Well, in five years or so we'll see what this mess will cause..

There is no salvaging this situation at this point. We have done so many things so wrong for such a long time that things have just gone to shit. The list of things we should have done differently but didn't is ridiculously long because our pres wanted to play general despite the fact that he couldn't win in Starcraft.

Technically, we could easily wipe out al qaeda, so long as nobody cared about massive collateral damage.

It seems that the USA already doesn't, so your point is? And what does Al Qaida have to do with the Iraq war?

There is no salvaging this situation at this point. We have done so many things so wrong for such a long time that things have just gone to shit. The list of things we should have done differently but didn't is ridiculously long because our pres wanted to play general despite the fact that he couldn't win in Starcraft.

Dude I'd own him in Starcraft. He'd spend all his time chasing down a wraith while I wiped out his base.

As if there is a chance in hell for success. Whatever happens the Iraqis are going to kill each other. The question is should American soldiers be killed trying to police them. The answer should only be no.

It seems that the USA already doesn't, so your point is?

Don't be silly, every country has it's limits. Even the USA.


And what does Al Qaida have to do with the Iraq war?

No direct link, but we all know that wiping out the Al Qaida is one of the US's ultimate goals.

How much money have we spent on Iraq?

No, seriously...I've lost track.

If we had invested that money in our own energy infastructure, and reduced our dependence on oil, we could simply tell the entire Middle East to fuck off.

The way I see it, immedeate withdrawl is the best option.

If Iran and Saudi Arabia want to fight over Iraq, by proxy or otherwise, that's just fine. They'll be making enemies of each other, instead of focusing on the U.S. If we take the money we're saving and wean ourself off of oil, it'll be China's mess to bother with long-term, since they'll need the oil more than anyone else at that point.

The economy may well go to hell...but people in the U.S. haven't faced genuine hardship on a national scale in some time. It might just be the very thing the country needs, and it'll certainly encourage us to push foward on renewable energy. Europe's already doing quite well on that front...and combined the US and EU can weather the economic storm.

The Kurds will have to fight for what they want, but Iran and Turkey know the score...that's a fight the Kurds will win one day, despite the costs.

The U.S. will have all the resources it needs for Afghanistan, as well as the ability to make more than empty threats regarding Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs.

Moderate Muslims the world over who have been arguing for U.S. withdrawl may just tip the fence and support us...they do outnumber the crazies, after all.

Iraq will be a shithole...it will be the fault of the U.S...it will be a magnet for terrorists, and a center of conflict for years to come.

Then again, perhaps it's better if our targets gather in one place...airpower is our speciality, and we've certainly utilized it to great effect in Iraq over the last 15 years or so.

Let the terrorists try and establish themselves...they'll soon wish they'd stayed scattered.

I think that's reason enough for withdrawl at this point. Staying simply delays the inevitable.

Well, in five years or so we'll see what this mess will cause..

Five more years? We've given four: it's not getting better. This is not another Vietnam.

Don't be silly, every country has it's limits. Even the USA.

When that "limit" surpasses 600000 dead Iraqis (not all at once, though, only hundreds or so here or there cumulatively, in palatable morsels, like crabs cooked in slowly but increasingly heated water) it doesn't seem to look like a limit. More like a "omg, 3000 dead troops! Oh, noes! What? Iraqis who?" sort of sentiment.

No direct link, but we all know that wiping out the Al Qaida is one of the US's ultimate goals.

Only in speech. In action, not really, no.

It's asinine to believe that anyone wants failure in Iraq much less is encouraging it just to prove a fucking point. You have to be a special kind of stupid to even kinda believe that. Harsh? You just implied that I want people to die to prove a political point, so yeah-fuck that. About as stupid as it comes.

When that "limit" surpasses 600000 dead Iraqis (not all at once, though, only hundreds or so here or there cumulatively, in palatable morsels, like crabs cooked in slowly but increasingly heated water) it doesn't seem to look like a limit. More like a "omg, 3000 dead troops! Oh, noes! What? Iraqis who?" sort of sentiment.


600000 out of a population of 27 million, most of whom are not civilians. The USA could do much much worse then that if it wanted to.


Only in speech. In action, not really, no.

Much of the resistance in Iraq that the US is fighting the Al Qaida are at least indirectly responsible for, but even if it wasn't the US could still easily wipe out the resistance so long as it doesn't care about killing millions of civilians as well.

What folks aren't thinking about is this.

When the United States fully withdraws from Iraq. Two aggravating factors are removed. It is far past the time that this would make a large difference but some of the stress and tension will go away.

Then it will return to the same problem that Iraq had before Hussein. Sh'ia and Sunni at each others throats wanting exclusive control of Iraq.

Al-Qaida will need to open a new front in their "jihad" (quoted for sarcasm) against the infidels (anyone who does not believe in the Wahibist sect of the Muslim faith).

As a Yank, there is not a heck of a lot I can do but apologize to the RoTW for our ineptitude. But at the same time, these...problems...face the Western nations in their entirety. The US is just the "face" and technically the most powerful military nation of the modern democratic nations of the West.

At this point, I have no ingenius solution to this problem. Frankly, Sunni and Sh'ia have been at each others throats for millenia. It has been the arrogance and messianic certitude of the "New World Order" neocons that have blown this problem up. I can do my part and try to see to it none of those bastards get elected ever again. I can directly ring up my elected Representatives and Senators and tell them precisely how I feel, but I am one of 300 million US citizens and bluntly, until we have a US President who gives a rat's ass how the majority of Americans feel, we won't get much in the area of direct results.

So...alas, our problem is yours. We made a mess on the floor, and I would love if we could clean it up entirely on our own, but it is long past that now. It is going to take cooler and more mature heads to prevail in Europe and the RoTW to make this problem start getting solved and discussed in a productive manner.

You have my apologies for the supreme idiocy of our government and the current crop of twits that dominate the high positions of power. We will try to do our part by getting a lot of them out of office. Now hopefully, Bush will make a consensus choice for the Presidency of the World Bank, and not hire another neocon crony like Wolfowitz was.

It seems that the USA already doesn't, so your point is? And what does Al Qaida have to do with the Iraq war?

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/Bush.jpg

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/Bush.jpg

It's so obvious!...How did we miss it...?

600000 out of a population of 27 million, most of whom are not civilians.

600000 people, why, what a drop in the bucket! Barely 3000 people out of 300 million in some towers somewhere? OMFG, what a tragedy!

The USA could do much much worse then that if it wanted to.

You severely underestimate their ineptitude.

Much of the resistance in Iraq that the US is fighting the Al Qaida are at least indirectly responsible for,

And whose fault is that? Not Iraq's, seeing as Al Qaida wasn't there before the war... which the USA started, why again? I keep forgetting the excuse de la semaine.

but even if it wasn't the US could still easily wipe out the resistance so long as it doesn't care about killing millions of civilians as well.

I've already mentioned the USA's penchant for failure. They could nuke the place into a heap of molten glass, and still be surprised that there'll be blowback from that as well.

Success in Iraq is possible, the cost is just extremely, extremely high. I doubt anyone is willing to pay that price.

600000 people, why, what a drop in the bucket! Barely 3000 people out of 300 million in some towers somewhere? OMFG, what a tragedy!


Whats your point?


You severely underestimate their ineptitude.


Inept or not, they are still the most powerful millitary in the world.


And whose fault is that? Not Iraq's, seeing as Al Qaida wasn't there before the war...

They were, there just isn't any evidence that Saddam was funding and collaborating with them.


I've already mentioned the USA's penchant for failure.

On what grounds?


They could nuke the place into a heap of molten glass, and still be surprised that there'll be blowback from that as well.

I doubt it.

Success in Iraq is possible, the cost is just extremely, extremely high. I doubt anyone is willing to pay that price.

You are wrong. Success there is no longer possible.

We (the US) frittered away our chance when we did not remember history in the Middle East. Especially in regard to the number of troops needed to be successful.

We do not have the manpower to do it, and the conflict is breaking our Army anyway.

The political mandate does not exist, nor do the American people want to be there anymore. This is Bush's last break, after this he loses. By September, no sane Republican will support this President. Believe me, nothing scares politicians more than the concept of losing power and they see that the light at the end of the tunnel is an oncoming freight train.

Whats your point?

Your point apparently is that somehow 600000 (and that's an old estimate) of 27 million is less important than barely 3000 out of 300 million. Because, apparently, those 3000 are worth starting wars for (whatever now Iraq is supposed to have had to do with them), but those 600000, they're chopped liver.

Inept or not, they are still the most powerful millitary in the world.

That's the really scary bit. We're supposed to worry about Iran and North Korea, when the most powerful military - demonstrably aggressive and quick to start wars (can they even go a decade nowadays without starting one?) - in the world is led by nincompoops.

They were,

In the sense that they were in every country in world.

there just isn't any evidence that Saddam was funding and collaborating with them.

So, what do they then have to do with the Iraq war?

On what grounds?

Well, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq and so on, didn't exactly go peachy...

I doubt it.

You're speaking about a country that not only didn't see 11/9 coming, but that still doesn't understand why it happened. They could punch a grandmother in the nose and still be surprised that she'll like them less for it.

I suggest that the US immediately withdraw.

With no warning.

And I also suggest that if there's a genocidal bloodbath that follows (Shias getting payback for 30 years of abuse), we point to the nations that suggested we leave and say, "That was your plan. You'll have to do something on your own."

You are wrong. Success there is no longer possible.

We (the US) frittered away our chance when we did not remember history in the Middle East. Especially in regard to the number of troops needed to be successful.

We do not have the manpower to do it, and the conflict is breaking our Army anyway.

The political mandate does not exist, nor do the American people want to be there anymore. This is Bush's last break, after this he loses. By September, no sane Republican will support this President. Believe me, nothing scares politicians more than the concept of losing power and they see that the light at the end of the tunnel is an oncoming freight train.

Like I said, no one is willing to bear the cost that success would require.

Your point apparently is that somehow 600000 (and that's an old estimate) of 27 million is less important than barely 3000 out of 300 million. Because, apparently, those 3000 are worth starting wars for, but those 600000, they're chopped liver.


I never said that. I only said that the USA could do worse then that if it wished to. And it's absurdly naive to actually believe that the war was simply based on revenge for 9/11 anyway.


That's the really scary bit. We're supposed to worry about Iran and North Korea, when the most powerful military - demonstrably aggressive and quick to start wars (can they even go a decade nowadays without starting one?) - in the world is led by nincompoops.


Who exactly are you saying are nincompoops, the Bush administration or the general administration of the army?


In the sense that they were in every country in world.


But more so in Iraq.


So, what do they then have to do with the Iraq war?

The USA at the time thought that Saddam was helping Al Qaida as well as possessing wmds.


Well, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq and so on, didn't exactly go peachy...


But they wern't total failures as such, and you can't use the past to predict the future.


You're speaking about a country that not only didn't see 11/9 coming

They've been aware about threats like that for years and years before 9/11, they've even stopped some attempts before hand.


but that still doesn't understand why it happened.

Of course they understand why Al Qaida hates the USA.

The USA at the time thought that Saddam was helping Al Qaida as well as possessing wmds.

You mean Bush and his lackeys thought that. Suppressing any attempt to tell them otherwise along the way of course. Only wanting to hear what they thought was true. So lets say Bush thought Saddam was doing these things.

I never said that. I only said that the USA could do worse then that if it wished to.

The Khmer Rouge could have probably done worse if they had wished to. That excuses them?

And it's absurdly naive to actually believe that the war was simply based on revenge for 9/11 anyway.

That was what they were fed. Oh, and some lies about WMDs. Then came "liberation". Oh, I bet those maimed Iraqis feel all liberated.

Who exactly are you saying are nincompoops, the Bush administration or the general administration of the army?

Both, really, the former much more than the latter, but the latter haven't been paragons of military strategy. Maybe of "strategery".

But more so in Iraq.

And much more so in Saudi Arabia. So?

The USA at the time thought that Saddam was helping Al Qaida as well as possessing wmds.

No, the USA at the time lied about those things.

But they wern't total failures as such,

Yeah, they got a couple of historically inaccurate and self-aggrandisingly delusional films like "Blackhawk Down" out of some of them, I'll grant you that.

and you can't use the past to predict the future.

Yeah, so if I build my house in an area where there have been a lot of earthquakes, some quite recent, I'd be daft to expect another one, so screw you, insurance companies!

They've been aware about threats like that for years and years before 9/11, they've even stopped some attempts before hand.

So, was that mock surprise we saw, those cries of "Why we? We're such great people!" imagined?

Of course they understand why Al Qaida hates the USA.

If by understand, you mean: "They hate our freedom and are jealous! It can't possibly be because of something we did to deserve it."

It seems that the USA already doesn't, so your point is?

Far from it. If it were the case that the USA didn't care about massive collateral damage, large parts of Asia would have been subjected to the Hiroshima treatment.

And what does Al Qaida have to do with the Iraq war?

The criminally idiotic policies of the current administration have allowed AQ to become involved there. (And as was partially pointed out above, the current administration, buying into it's own arguments, assumed a previous connection on no real basis.)

The Khmer Rouge could have probably done worse if they had wished to. That excuses them?


No, but it's good to see that you agree with me that they could do worse.


Both, really, the former much more than the latter, but the latter haven't been paragons of military strategy. Maybe of "strategery".


The US military are competant enough to perform any task they are ordered too. Remember they do have some of the most advanced strategies and technology in the world, it's not their fault if the orders they are given from the top are bullshit.


And much more so in Saudi Arabia. So?


So Al Qaida were actually in Iraq.


No, the USA at the time lied about those things.


Maybe, or they believed it but they were wrong, or they wern't wrong but all the info is locked away in a top secret CIA vault. Whatever, it doesn't matter anymore.


Yeah, they got a couple of historically inaccurate and self-aggrandisingly delusional films like "Blackhawk Down" out of some of them, I'll grant you that.


I havn't seen Blackhawk down, but I thought that film painted somalia as a failure.


Yeah, so if I build my house in an area where there have been a lot of earthquakes, some quite recent, I'd be daft to expect another one, so screw you, insurance companies!


People and volcanoes are different. People are much more unpredictable.


So, was that mock surprise we saw, those cries of "Why we? We're such great people!" imagined?


Who were making those cries?


If by understand, you mean: "They hate our freedom and are jealous! It can't possibly be because of something we did to deserve it."

Don't be naive, those slogans like "they hate our freedom" is nothing more then propaganda. And you seem to be implying that the USA deserved 9/11, a dangerously intollerant thing to say no?

If by understand, you mean: "They hate our freedom and are jealous! It can't possibly be because of something we did to deserve it."

I'd say that it is neither one of those but that these extremists are just jealous of our wealth. They and the people living around them are living in poverty and here we are living in luxury and of course living immoral lives. The leaders of these terrorists are most likely sociopaths who like killing and use their violent nonsensical rhetoric to recruit then their footsoldiers being either naive kids or those with low IQs, both easily able to be manipulated do the killing and dying while they stay hidden. Contemptuous but then our action in Iraq are hardly improving things one bit.

Of course trying to improve the lives of these people in some way other than military action to "free them" isn't flashy or visible enough so we never try.

I'd say that it is neither one of those but that these extremists are just jealous of our wealth. They and the people living around them are living in poverty and here we are living in luxury and of course living immoral lives. The leaders of these terrorists are most likely sociopaths who like killing and use their violent nonsensical rhetoric to recruit then their footsoldiers being either naive kids or those with low IQs, both easily able to be manipulated do the killing and dying while they stay hidden. Contemptuous but then our action in Iraq are hardly improving things one bit.

See, Hydesland? I told you so. "The terrorists are jealous of us. We're innocent little angels."

I understand the desire to say ‘the US got into it, it is their problem’.
However, the implications for an American failure are going to affect everyone, so why are so many people behaving in a petty selfish manner and looking for the US to fail?

Yes, Bush is a simplistic ideologue surrounded by ineffective (being generous there) people who failed to properly prepare or execute the war. Name one nation in the world that has never had an imperfect politician. Unfortunately we had the bad luck not to have had a better president to handle what happened after September 11th, but is laughing at the folly of an American President worth seeing the region descend into chaos?

Short-sighted voters in the US have a mistaken belief that if we just pull all our troops out of the region it will be the end of all troubles. Short-sighted politicians in the rest of the world think that it is not their problem if the US is stuck in a bad position in Iraq. Unfortunately the combination of the two means that unless something miraculous happens, we are going to see some serious problems arising there.

If the US pulls out of Iraq, the whole world is looking at problems – the sectarian violence that will explode between Sunni and Shiite, the Kurdish problem with Turkey (and to a lesser extend with Syria and Iran), Iranian influence backing religious extremists turning southern Iraq into a theocracy without even the illusion of secular democracy that Iranians cling to, all the Sunni states throughout the region scrambling for nuclear weapons of their own to counter Iran… need I go on?

Yes, the US administration mishandled things and did not plan appropriately for what would happen after the invasion. Their concept of diplomacy was little better than an 8 year old watching old John Wayne movies. Even most of the American people agree with you there, but are you all really so petty you are willing to see death and destruction on a massive scale just so you can point out that the US administration made a mistake?


Thank you for pointing this out, I have been making similar arguments for sometime now on various boards and blogs I visit, but most people I talk to only want to pull out. It helps to hear someone else repeating this argument.

Implications of American failure in Iraq?


I'm tempted to say: Hilarity.

See, Hydesland? I told you so. "The terrorists are jealous of us. We're innocent little angels."

God knows we've never given them any reason to hate us!

See, Hydesland? I told you so. "The terrorists are jealous of us. We're innocent little angels."

I am not going to excuse the actions of violent people who decide that blowing things up is somehow the right thing to do. What we are doing in the Middle East is no more right than what the terrorists are doing but putting America on the same level is ludicrous. These are angry marginalized people who want someone to hurt and we are a big target along with anyone else who they feel is somehow responsible for their misery.

And if all you got from my post was that we are "innocent little angels" than I'm sorry your anti-American bias is ruling your judgment. Our indifference in learning their culture and our actions in the past decades in the area certainly stewed the pot but it is they who chose to commit terrorist acts. They should have responsibility over their own actions. If someone does something wrong you don't blame another for their acts after all. What they may have done is inexcusable but the individual certainly has a mind of their own and can make their own decisions.

Bin Laden and his terrorists became convinced that America was a "paper tiger" (looks fearsome, but is weak) after the whole Lebenon incident in the 1980s. We don't need to encourage said terrorists.

But oul Bin and the ladens are not in Iraq. Seperate issue.


600000 out of a population of 27 million, most of whom are not civilians...

'Most of whom are' is what you're trying to say there. And two million plus refugees.


The USA at the time thought that Saddam was helping Al Qaida as well as possessing wmds..

No, thats what it said. What some of them said later is rather illuminating.

To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two," (referring to Iraq & Al Qaeda)

Donald Rumsfeld
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3715396.stm

"I have not seen one.... I have never seen any evidence to suggest there was one." Colin Powell on the allegation of Iraq/Al Qaeda link - interview, Sept 9th 2005 to "20/20"

No, but it's good to see that you agree with me that they could do worse.

Ah, they deserve a pat on the back for not quite being the failures one could expect, that what you saying?

The US military are competant enough to perform any task they are ordered too.

Weren't we just talking about Somalia?

Remember they do have some of the most advanced strategies and technology in the world, it's not their fault if the orders they are given from the top are bullshit.

Ah, blame the politicians for the military's failures. The latter can do no wrong! Oh, but pay no attention to Abu Ghraib...

So Al Qaida were actually in Iraq.

So, they were actually everywhere, Iraq less than other places.

Maybe, or they believed it but they were wrong, or they wern't wrong but all the info is locked away in a top secret CIA vault. Whatever, it doesn't matter anymore.

Yeah, who could ever think the reason to start a war matters?

I havn't seen Blackhawk down, but I thought that film painted somalia as a failure.

Nah, as most films of the type from the USA it depicted them as glorious, and almost sanctioned by providence, do-gooders fighting evil incarnate, but just hitting a snag or two.

People and volcanoes are different. People are much more unpredictable.

Yeah, I know that every time I patch up the same lush, I'm always surprised when he comes back a week later.

Who were making those cries?

You weren't much in tune with US media at the time, no?

Don't be naive, those slogans like "they hate our freedom" is nothing more then propaganda.

Utracia would seem to differ.

And you seem to be implying that the USA deserved 9/11, a dangerously intollerant thing to say no?

What goes around comes around, and, boy, have the USA been passing it around this last half century... so, no, I can't really be as sympathetic as I could be with countries where such an attack wouldn't be understandable, or in this case, expected. Sure, the actual manner of the attack was theatrical, but the attack itself didn't exactly floor me with shock.

God knows we've never given them any reason to hate us!

Who could ever hate you? You're such good people who only do good!

Maybe, or they believed it but they were wrong, or they wern't wrong but all the info is locked away in a top secret CIA vault. Whatever, it doesn't matter anymore.

The fact that our leaders could very well have misled the world on the reasons we went into Iraq doesn't matter? People say stop talking about that kind of thing, its old news, but it is something we should never forget and should bring it up again and again and again. Just like the fact that I firmly believe that Bush should never have been made president in 2000 that he and his supporters helped make sure he got the position whether he won or not. People don't want to hear about it anymore but the fact was that was a disgusting point for America and the invasion of Iraq was another. It matters very much, ignoring them doesn't make them go away.

I am not going to excuse the actions of violent people who decide that blowing things up is somehow the right thing to do. What we are doing in the Middle East is no more right than what the terrorists are doing but putting America on the same level is ludicrous. These are angry marginalized people who want someone to hurt and we are a big target along with anyone else who they feel is somehow responsible for their misery.

And if all you got from my post was that we are "innocent little angels" than I'm sorry your anti-American bias is ruling your judgment. Our indifference in learning their culture and our actions in the past decades in the area certainly stewed the pot but it is they who chose to commit terrorist acts. They should have responsibility over their own actions. If someone does something wrong you don't blame another for their acts after all. What they may have done is inexcusable but the individual certainly has a mind of their own and can make their own decisions.

Furthermore, the pot is much bigger and older than most people on these forums recognize. When he claimed responsibility for the September Eleventh attacks, bin Laden cited the primary reason for his actions being the crimes of 1918. He was referring to the break-up of the Ottoman Empire at the hands of the western powers.

The Islamist argument is based around the viewpoint that the Muslim World has gotten the short end of the stick for the past 81 years, and that it was by intentional design of the European powers. The failure of Arab Nationalism (and the so-called associated Arab Socialism) to improve the lot of the people of the Middle East has only made the problem worse. They were promised success, prosperity and military glory by their leaders, who only delivered misery and continued tyranny and a total failure to confront Israel successfully. They placed the blame for the failure of the system, not on the Arab Nationalist belief structure, but on perceived external influences (whether these influences existed or not is debatable). An undercurrent of the most religiously conservative of the aggrieved (who had suffered at the hands of Soviet supported Arab Nationalist regimes) developed to the point where violent action against the USSR developed. The Soviet War in Afghanistan is the starting point of much of the modern Islamist movement. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the drive to keep the movement alive led to the need to develop another external bully. A dead Soviet Union, and non-colonial European powers left only one big target on the block. The Islamist agenda chose a new target, a proxy target for its anger: The United States. Has the US played an angelic role in the region? God, no. We've had our fair share of ill conceived actions and unpopular decisions, but that's not what created the Islamist movement. It's a complex chain of events, involving the schizophrenic regional identity politics and countless other factors. To blame the development of the Islamist movement US is foolish, short-sighted and simplistic.

I understand the desire to say ‘the US got into it, it is their problem’.
However, the implications for an American failure are going to affect everyone, so why are so many people behaving in a petty selfish manner and looking for the US to fail?

Yes, Bush is a simplistic ideologue surrounded by ineffective (being generous there) people who failed to properly prepare or execute the war. Name one nation in the world that has never had an imperfect politician. Unfortunately we had the bad luck not to have had a better president to handle what happened after September 11th, but is laughing at the folly of an American President worth seeing the region descend into chaos?

Short-sighted voters in the US have a mistaken belief that if we just pull all our troops out of the region it will be the end of all troubles. Short-sighted politicians in the rest of the world think that it is not their problem if the US is stuck in a bad position in Iraq. Unfortunately the combination of the two means that unless something miraculous happens, we are going to see some serious problems arising there.

If the US pulls out of Iraq, the whole world is looking at problems – the sectarian violence that will explode between Sunni and Shiite, the Kurdish problem with Turkey (and to a lesser extend with Syria and Iran), Iranian influence backing religious extremists turning southern Iraq into a theocracy without even the illusion of secular democracy that Iranians cling to, all the Sunni states throughout the region scrambling for nuclear weapons of their own to counter Iran… need I go on?

Yes, the US administration mishandled things and did not plan appropriately for what would happen after the invasion. Their concept of diplomacy was little better than an 8 year old watching old John Wayne movies. Even most of the American people agree with you there, but are you all really so petty you are willing to see death and destruction on a massive scale just so you can point out that the US administration made a mistake?

There is no reason why other countries should waste their people and money on something that will fail unless something drastic happens. The US is the big bad superpower, let them fix it.

Ah, they deserve a pat on the back for not quite being the failures one could expect, that what you saying?


I'm saying that it's possible for USA to succeed in eliminating the resistance, but at an unacceptable cost.


Weren't we just talking about Somalia?


Somalia was hardly a war, at most it was a very small and unnessicery milliraty battle not really demonstrative of the USA's abillity at handling widespread resistance across a whole country.


Ah, blame the politicians for the military's failures. The latter can do no wrong! Oh, but pay no attention to Abu Ghraib...


I'm not blaming them entirely, but significantly. What does Abu Ghraib have to do with anything?


So, they were actually everywhere, Iraq less than other places.


Iraq did have a significant al qaida presence.


Yeah, who could ever think the reason to start a war matters?


It doesn't matter in this discussion.


Nah, as most films of the type from the USA it depicted them as glorious, and almost sanctioned by providence, do-gooders fighting evil incarnate, but just hitting a snag or two.


You seem to be mixing up the soldiers with the people who command the soldiers. The former are only doing their job.


Yeah, I know that every time I patch up the same lush, I'm always surprised when he comes back a week later.


eh?


You weren't much in tune with US media at the time, no?


Sorry, I should have asked who were making those cries that matter.


Utracia would seem to differ.


I don't think he is saying what you think he is saying.


What goes around comes around, and, boy, have the USA been passing it around this last half century... so, no, I can't really be as sympathetic as I could be with countries where such an attack wouldn't be understandable, or in this case, expected. Sure, the actual manner of the attack was theatrical, but the attack itself didn't exactly floor me with shock.

It may have been expected, but that doesn't mean it was justified, and that doesn't mean that you can't sympathise with the innocnets who were killed.

The fact that our leaders could very well have misled the world on the reasons we went into Iraq doesn't matter? People say stop talking about that kind of thing, its old news, but it is something we should never forget and should bring it up again and again and again. Just like the fact that I firmly believe that Bush should never have been made president in 2000 that he and his supporters helped make sure he got the position whether he won or not. People don't want to hear about it anymore but the fact was that was a disgusting point for America and the invasion of Iraq was another. It matters very much, ignoring them doesn't make them go away.

Thats not what I meant.

The topic implies there's a chance for anything but abject failure. There's not.

No actually it doesn't. Entropic points out that regardless of why we are in Iraq in the first place, the options are bleak no matter how you look at it.

Your choices are:

Controlled Chaos, which brings in a strong U.N. and provides negotiation with Iraq's neighbors to support a secular and democratic Iraq. Foreign forces stay in Iraq from 20 to 30 years and eventually the country can support itself. Bush will never accept such an option as it removes the U.S. from control, but still leaves us footing the majority of the bill.

Controlled Failure, where the U.S maintains a force in Iraq, gradually pulling out forces as to builds international support and negotiates with Iraq's neighbors to help stablize the country. Will take an extrememly long time to actually stablize the country (50-60 years) hence, failure all the same. Could happen if Bush wanted to negotiate with Iran, and Syria, but is rather unlikely given his classification of Iran as an "Axis of Evil" and Iran's nuclear ambitions

Constant Insurection and Failure, where the US is constantly losing support from its allies and civilian population, yet a weakened military presence is maintained to provide logistical support and training to a very weak Iraqi military. This is basically what is happening now. It is failure, but it is far better that the last option and keeps the US involved in the problems it created.

Collapse and Regional Civil War, what will happen if US troops leave before the Iraqi military is ready. Everyone knows were Iran stands on the issue of Iraq. Their agenda is a non-secular Shitte Theorcracy in Iraq. It provides Iran with another ally in the Middle East and raises tensions between Iran and the Arab nations and Israel. Saudi Arabia has already stated they will support the Sunni's if a civil war broke out, granted that statement was retracted, but that was due to US pressure. Rest assured, if a full blown civil war did break out, Iran, Syria and the Arab penensula would all support their religious faction. Iraqi Kurdistan would love to stay out of the war, but they have little income compared to the middle of Iraq, so they would get involved just to gain some territory and capture some of the oil wealth of Iraq. Israel hardens its borders and moves into a higher state of readiness, expecting the conflict to spill over, leaving all the hopes and dreams of the Palestinians to crumble. Granted this is all my speculation , but much of it is somewhat likely. Regardless of how it turns out, Saudi, and Iran will get involved if only to counter the power of the other in the region. And none of this says anything about what will happen to the world's economy as its largest oil suppliers get sucked into a civil war. For Americans 3$ gasoline is only the beginning, it will get much higher as supply diminishes and demand remains unchanged. This is a very ugly option, and only happens if Congress, or our next President pulls US toops out too soon.

Iraq did have a significant al qaida presence.





lol, sure.

It's not their problem....[/QUOTE]

I beg to differ. If the US completely fails in Iraq, the consequences will be felt globally, anyone that usual fuel of any sort, except maybe coal, will feel the repricussions of that failure. As I said in an earlier posts, $3.00 gas (petrol) in the US is nothing, Europe and the US will both face astronomically high oil prices as civil war tears the entire Middle East apart.

It seems that the USA already doesn't, so your point is? And what does Al Qaida have to do with the Iraq war?

Al Qaida is fighting us there. Not even the most leftist vegan thinks that there are no Al Qaidans in Iraq.

There is no salvaging this situation at this point. We have done so many things so wrong for such a long time that things have just gone to shit. The list of things we should have done differently but didn't is ridiculously long because our pres wanted to play general despite the fact that he couldn't win in Starcraft.

I don't think any situation is hopeless. In order to correct the problems here we have to engage Iraq's neigbors and get them to agree to help us. This situation is rather difficult given Bush's stuborness, and Iran's nuclear ambitions. Once Iraq's neighbors are on our side, we would then need to gather support in the UN. But none of this is possible if the US withdraws its troops before Iraq is ready.

Also, I can assure you that Bush at no point in time has given an of our Generals an order on how to conduct the war. He is a big picture man, unfortunately, he doesn't have a clear view of his big picture.

Furthermore, the pot is much bigger and older than most people on these forums recognize. When he claimed responsibility for the September Eleventh attacks, bin Laden cited the primary reason for his actions being the crimes of 1918. He was referring to the break-up of the Ottoman Empire at the hands of the western powers.

The Islamist argument is based around the viewpoint that the Muslim World has gotten the short end of the stick for the past 81 years, and that it was by intentional design of the European powers. The failure of Arab Nationalism (and the so-called associated Arab Socialism) to improve the lot of the people of the Middle East has only made the problem worse. They were promised success, prosperity and military glory by their leaders, who only delivered misery and continued tyranny and a total failure to confront Israel successfully. They placed the blame for the failure of the system, not on the Arab Nationalist belief structure, but on perceived external influences (whether these influences existed or not is debatable). An undercurrent of the most religiously conservative of the aggrieved (who had suffered at the hands of Soviet supported Arab Nationalist regimes) developed to the point where violent action against the USSR developed. The Soviet War in Afghanistan is the starting point of much of the modern Islamist movement. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the drive to keep the movement alive led to the need to develop another external bully. A dead Soviet Union, and non-colonial European powers left only one big target on the block. The Islamist agenda chose a new target, a proxy target for its anger: The United States. Has the US played an angelic role in the region? God, no. We've had our fair share of ill conceived actions and unpopular decisions, but that's not what created the Islamist movement. It's a complex chain of events, involving the schizophrenic regional identity politics and countless other factors. To blame the development of the Islamist movement US is foolish, short-sighted and simplistic.

Those details certainly help.

*bows*

For me I think whenever someone decides to moan about how evil Saddam was I should just respond that America used to have a close relationship with the man when it suited our interests. But I guess a friend turning into a foe later on is nothing new for the United States. Seems to happen quite alot in fact...

Utracia would seem to differ.

You clearly don't understand what it is I'm saying. They "they hate our freedoms!" is just propaganda for domestic consumption. The reasons why they hate us are of course much more complicated but if you think we should be feeling sympathetic to them or something then you are certainly looking in the wrong place. I will not shed a single tear for people who will choose to take the actions they are taking no matter how good their supposed reasons are.

Of course this does not mean that we should be in Iraq or treat suspected terrorists as anything but human with all the rights they should receive so please don't attempt to misunderstand me yet again.

Furthermore, the pot is much bigger and older than most people on these forums recognize. When he claimed responsibility for the September Eleventh attacks, bin Laden cited the primary reason for his actions being the crimes of 1918. He was referring to the break-up of the Ottoman Empire at the hands of the western powers.

The Islamist argument is based around the viewpoint that the Muslim World has gotten the short end of the stick for the past 81 years, and that it was by intentional design of the European powers. The failure of Arab Nationalism (and the so-called associated Arab Socialism) to improve the lot of the people of the Middle East has only made the problem worse. They were promised success, prosperity and military glory by their leaders, who only delivered misery and continued tyranny and a total failure to confront Israel successfully. They placed the blame for the failure of the system, not on the Arab Nationalist belief structure, but on perceived external influences (whether these influences existed or not is debatable). An undercurrent of the most religiously conservative of the aggrieved (who had suffered at the hands of Soviet supported Arab Nationalist regimes) developed to the point where violent action against the USSR developed. The Soviet War in Afghanistan is the starting point of much of the modern Islamist movement. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the drive to keep the movement alive led to the need to develop another external bully. A dead Soviet Union, and non-colonial European powers left only one big target on the block. The Islamist agenda chose a new target, a proxy target for its anger: The United States. Has the US played an angelic role in the region? God, no. We've had our fair share of ill conceived actions and unpopular decisions, but that's not what created the Islamist movement. It's a complex chain of events, involving the schizophrenic regional identity politics and countless other factors. To blame the development of the Islamist movement US is foolish, short-sighted and simplistic.

You win t3h thread

How much money have we spent on Iraq?

No, seriously...I've lost track.

If we had invested that money in our own energy infastructure, and reduced our dependence on oil, we could simply tell the entire Middle East to fuck off.

The way I see it, immedeate withdrawl is the best option.

If Iran and Saudi Arabia want to fight over Iraq, by proxy or otherwise, that's just fine. They'll be making enemies of each other, instead of focusing on the U.S. If we take the money we're saving and wean ourself off of oil, it'll be China's mess to bother with long-term, since they'll need the oil more than anyone else at that point.

This is the same attitude that caused 9/11 in the first place. And all that would do, beside create civil war in the Middle East, would create a whole new breed of terrorist, and in 30 years we would have a new Bin Laden to deal with, only this one would be born and bred in Iraq.

The economy may well go to hell...but people in the U.S. haven't faced genuine hardship on a national scale in some time. It might just be the very thing the country needs, and it'll certainly encourage us to push foward on renewable energy. Europe's already doing quite well on that front...and combined the US and EU can weather the economic storm.

Given the state of affairs I don't think the US and EU could handle the collapse of the global economy together, or apart. And, personally, I have no desire to be scrounging for to meet my basic needs. Life is already hard enough just trying to get by, it would be far more difficult, if the economy collapsed, and I could no longer afford to drive my car to get to work. Walking 50 miles a day to and from work would be way too difficult. I'd have to get up way to early, and would end up missing most of my children's day. And sure you suggest moving closer to work, but that isn't possible since the economy has collapsed I won't be able to afford a house anywhere near work, assuming I am even able to hang onto the house I have today.

Iraq will be a shithole...it will be the fault of the U.S...it will be a magnet for terrorists, and a center of conflict for years to come.

And out of the ashes will rises a new evil far worse than Bin Laden, and just as bent on destroying the West, and America will be at the top of his list. Why not stop the madness now, and finally learn from our past?

Al Qaida is fighting us there. Not even the most leftist vegan thinks that there are no Al Qaidans in Iraq.

They are though only a small minority of the insurgents.

When that "limit" surpasses 600000 dead Iraqis (not all at once, though, only hundreds or so here or there cumulatively, in palatable morsels, like crabs cooked in slowly but increasingly heated water) it doesn't seem to look like a limit. More like a "omg, 3000 dead troops! Oh, noes! What? Iraqis who?" sort of sentiment.

Your making this argument as if American troops went out and shot all 600,000 Iraqis themselves. Are you forgetting that it is insurgents and terrorists that have killed the vast majority of those?

And when he is talking limits he means that a country will have limits on the action is will take. The US does have a limit on how much collateral damage it will deem acceptable from its actions. Obvisouly the insurgents and terrorists in Iraq, have a far greater limit, like more than 600,000.

I'm saying that it's possible for USA to succeed in eliminating the resistance, but at an unacceptable cost.

So, you're saying something completely pointless?

Somalia was hardly a war, at most it was a very small and unnessicery milliraty battle not really demonstrative of the USA's abillity at handling widespread resistance across a whole country.

Vietnam, then.

I'm not blaming them entirely, but significantly.

Don't blame the sentient killing machine, blame the voices it listens to. Gotcha.

What does Abu Ghraib have to do with anything?

Weren't we talking about military incompetence? Or, is this just another Chinese Embassy to be forgotten?

Iraq did have a significant al qaida presence.

Sure, it did. Sure. And if you keep repeating it, someone might start believing you.

It doesn't matter in this discussion.

It doesn't matter to know what "success" is?

You seem to be mixing up the soldiers with the people who command the soldiers. The former are only doing their job.

That excuse didn't work in Nürnberg or Srebrenica or Somalia, and it doesn't work in other atrocities.

eh?

Eh, what? People can be predicted much more than you think they can.

Sorry, I should have asked who were making those cries that matter.

I do share your sentiment that the inhabitants of the USA don't matter, but do they?

I don't think he is saying what you think he is saying.

Oh, he's saying the main reason they hate the USA is because it's rich and they're not. It's the same old jealousy nonsense.

It may have been expected, but that doesn't mean it was justified,

Why not? The USA seems to think its killing of civilians is justified, so why can't the other side's be justified? Because the other side is not the USA?

and that doesn't mean that you can't sympathise with the innocnets who were killed.

The USA doesn't sympathise, why should I?

So, you're saying something completely pointless?


If it's pointless, why did you start debating in the first place?


Vietnam, then.


That wasn't a complete failure, not the sort of failure that Iraq is in danger of becoming.


Don't blame the sentient killing machine, blame the voices it listens to. Gotcha.


In a way, yes.


Weren't we talking about military incompetence? Or, is this just another Chinese Embassy to be forgotten?


Thats not incompetence, more intollerance.


Sure, it did. Sure. And if you keep repeating it, someone might start believing you.


Whatever.


It doesn't matter to know what "success" is?


I said it doesn't matter to this discussion to know what the original reasons for starting the war are.


That excuse didn't work in Nürnberg or Srebrenica or Somalia, and it doesn't work in other atrocities.


I don't see how somalia was an atrocitie.


Eh, what? People can be predicted much more than you think they can.


But todays millitary isn't even the same people as the millitary of somalia, or Vietnam etc...


I do share your sentiment that the inhabitants of the USA don't matter, but do they?


Not in determining the reasons for the war.


Oh, he's saying the main reason they hate the USA is because it's rich and they're not. It's the same old jealousy nonsense.


I'll leave this between you and Utrucia.


Why not? The USA seems to think its killing of civilians is justified, so why can't the other side's be justified? Because the other side is not the USA?


Because the USA doesn't deliberately kill civilians. Where as the 9/11 attacks do, they deliberately target civilians that have absolutely nothing to do with the situation in the middle east.


The USA doesn't sympathise, why should I?

Of course they sympathise. Have you had your head in the sand? Have you not seen the huge protests etc...?

Those details certainly help.

*bows*

For me I think whenever someone decides to moan about how evil Saddam was I should just respond that America used to have a close relationship with the man when it suited our interests. But I guess a friend turning into a foe later on is nothing new for the United States. Seems to happen quite alot in fact...

Aye, the case of Hussein's Iraq is so complex and weird. It's practically a microcosm of American involvement in the region. The US didn't particularly care for Hussein up until the Iran-Iraq War broke out. This event was a major threat to the stability of the Middle East, offering one side the ability to overpower the other, and thereby come to dominate the region. The US didn't want this to happen, so throughout the war we provided limited quantities of equipment and money to both sides (Iran-Contra, anyone?) as part of a greater strategy to keep both sides antagonistic towards each other, and keep these two countries, which were capable of dominating the region, from doing so. Even at our high point, though, we were funneling less money to Hussein than the USSR, Egypt or Brazil. We were a bit player in the Iran-Iraq War, yet the role we played was unscrupulous and ill conceived. Further, poor intelligence caused major problems and challenges for the US. The US counted on Hussein remaining occupied with Iran, so as to prevent his expansionist ambitions from taking shape in the West.

The USIC poorly estimated Hussein's plans, and as a result, we failed to predict his decision to move into Kuwait. Some have taken Gillespie's comments as having given Hussein the go-ahead for the invasion, yet what seems most likely is that the US didn't have the slightest inkling that military action might occur. Instead, we thought that the two countries would have some unhappy diplomatic meetings and work out a compromise, we thought a hands-off policy would be best, and that's why Gillespie told Hussein that "Arab debates were best left decided by Arabs." The USIC thought Hussein didn't want to expose his eastern flank to another round of Iranian incursions by picking fights with the states to his west, who had no interest in fighting Iraq. We were wrong.

Miscalculation, misunderstanding and a lack of good moral scruples is what has brought us to this current impasse in the Middle East, and it's gonna take a lot of good-faith efforts to get ourselves out of the hole we've dug with Iraq, and consequently with much of the region. At times we seem two faced, at times we seem harsh and disregarding of the interests of the people of the region, willing to sacrifice their lives to our own regional strategies. We've screwed up a lot and it won't be easily forgotten by people who don't forget grudges that are a millennium old.

Did that make any sense? I'm not sure why I posted it, or what argument I'm trying to make.

I understand the desire to say ‘the US got into it, it is their problem’.
However, the implications for an American failure are going to affect everyone, so why are so many people behaving in a petty selfish manner and looking for the US to fail?

Yes, Bush is a simplistic ideologue surrounded by ineffective (being generous there) people who failed to properly prepare or execute the war. Name one nation in the world that has never had an imperfect politician. Unfortunately we had the bad luck not to have had a better president to handle what happened after September 11th, but is laughing at the folly of an American President worth seeing the region descend into chaos?

Short-sighted voters in the US have a mistaken belief that if we just pull all our troops out of the region it will be the end of all troubles. Short-sighted politicians in the rest of the world think that it is not their problem if the US is stuck in a bad position in Iraq. Unfortunately the combination of the two means that unless something miraculous happens, we are going to see some serious problems arising there.

If the US pulls out of Iraq, the whole world is looking at problems – the sectarian violence that will explode between Sunni and Shiite, the Kurdish problem with Turkey (and to a lesser extend with Syria and Iran), Iranian influence backing religious extremists turning southern Iraq into a theocracy without even the illusion of secular democracy that Iranians cling to, all the Sunni states throughout the region scrambling for nuclear weapons of their own to counter Iran… need I go on?

Yes, the US administration mishandled things and did not plan appropriately for what would happen after the invasion. Their concept of diplomacy was little better than an 8 year old watching old John Wayne movies. Even most of the American people agree with you there, but are you all really so petty you are willing to see death and destruction on a massive scale just so you can point out that the US administration made a mistake?

Holy shit, it's a foreigner who realizes that Europe and the rest of the fucking world are a whole lot closer to these guys than we (America) are!

I've done two mid-east knowledge pukes in this thread...what the hell am I up to?

I know a solution to all our middle east problems

N00K$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just glass em and restart the region. It may seem immoral but it stops the downward spiral that the region is descending into and stops alot of the world's problems/.

I know a solution to all our middle east problems

N00K$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just glass em and restart the region. It may seem immoral but it stops the downward spiral that the region is descending into and stops alot of the world's problems/.

No!!!! I never thought I'd see that in a mid-east thread.....

I know a solution to all our middle east problems

N00K$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just glass em and restart the region. It may seem immoral but it stops the downward spiral that the region is descending into and stops alot of the world's problems/.

You killed the thread.

I know a solution to all our middle east problems

N00K$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just glass em and restart the region. It may seem immoral but it stops the downward spiral that the region is descending into and stops alot of the world's problems/.

Just thinking about it made my back ache disappear.

If it's pointless, why did you start debating in the first place?

Because I couldn't allow myself to believe someone would post something so devoid of relevant meaning that I had to inquire as to the intent. It seems like I'll just have to grant myself that permission.

That wasn't a complete failure, not the sort of failure that Iraq is in danger of becoming.

Sure, honey, sure. A lost war, chock-full of atrocities committed by the USA's troops, and where South Vietnam had to be abandoned is not a failure! It is a great success!

In a way, yes.

So much for personal responsibility.

Thats not incompetence, more intollerance.

Then I don't think you know what incompetence means. Unless you deem it competent to torture prisoners and have them build naked pyramids and then take pictures of them and then spread them around for all to see.

Whatever.

Oooh, what a stinging rebuttal.

I said it doesn't matter to this discussion to know what the original reasons for starting the war are.

So, you don't want to know why the war is fought, but can then decide if it is a success or not?

I don't see how somalia was an atrocitie.

You really don't, do you? I guess all those refugees didn't have anything to flee from.

But todays millitary isn't even the same people as the millitary of somalia, or Vietnam etc...

And today's ABBA tribute bands aren't ABBA, but they'll sing the same songs.

Not in determining the reasons for the war.

Which is not what this was part of the convo was about. It was about them not being able to figure out why 11/9 happened.

Because the USA doesn't deliberately kill civilians. Where as the 9/11 attacks do, they deliberately target civilians that have absolutely nothing to do with the situation in the middle east.

Yeah, right! The term "collateral damage" isn't used to denote unintentionally killed civilians. It is used to denote the civilians you are willing to kill to get what you want - a calculated and acceptable loss of innocents to achieve your goals. I guess because the USA has an army, it's somehow less bad.

Of course they sympathise. Have you had your head in the sand? Have you not seen the huge protests etc...?

Those aren't for sympathy with the dead Iraqis, those are for their own pockets and possibly their own troops.

Technically, we could easily wipe out al qaeda, so long as nobody cared about massive collateral damage.I heard about some Nigerian Intelligence, aparently there is 2 Al-Quaeda sleeper agents in Brighton, and to be honest I do care about collateral damage in Brighton.. but I have to make sure the alleged AQ dies.

*sends 24 Tomahawks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:USN_Tactical_Tomahawk_launch.jpg) to Hydesland Hometown.*

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/USN_Tactical_Tomahawk_launch.jpg/300px-USN_Tactical_Tomahawk_launch.jpg

Because I couldn't allow myself to believe someone would post something so devoid of relevant meaning that I had to inquire as to the intent. It seems like I'll just have to grant myself that permission.


It's rellavent to the group of people who think that this failure in Iraq shows that the USA is week.


Sure, honey, sure. A lost war, chock-full of atrocities committed by the USA's troops, and where South Vietnam had to be abandoned is not a failure! It is a great success!


But there are different sorts of failure, it wasn't so much of a failure that the situation was actually worse then beforehand and certainly not as bad as the situation could turn out to be in Iraq.


So much for personal responsibility.


I didn't say that the soldiers are completely devoid of respnosbility.


Then I don't think you know what incompetence means. Unless you deem it competent to torture prisoners and have them build naked pyramids and then take pictures of them and then spread them around for all to see.


It's not rellavent to how good the USA are at fighting a war. It just shows that there are a small bunch of retarded prison guards in the army.


Oooh, what a stinging rebuttal.


Like there was anything to refute.


So, you don't want to know why the war is fought, but can then decide if it is a success or not?


I'm saying that the intentions of the fighting today are different from the original intentions.


You really don't, do you? I guess all those refugees didn't have anything to flee from.


Assuming Somalia was an atrocitie, I still don't see how you can blame the soldiers who have no authority to make these decisiosn.


And today's ABBA tribute bands aren't ABBA, but they'll sing the same songs.


But are they as good?


Which is not what this was part of the convo was about. It was about them not being able to figure out why 11/9 happened.


So what if some of the press don't know the exact reasons why? The government sure does.


Yeah, right! The term "collateral damage" isn't used to denote unintentionally killed civilians. It is used to denote the civilians you are willing to kill to get what you want - a calculated and acceptable loss of innocents to achieve your goals. I guess because the USA has an army, it's somehow less bad.


It's a war, what the fuck do you expect? Their targets are always legitimate, thats the important thing. There is a reason behind their attacks. Terrorists have no legitimate reason to kill innocent people. Even if the USA decided to nuke every country in the middle east, that still wouldn't justify the 9/11 attacks and it's fucked up beyond repair that you think it's even remotely possible to justify such actions. Not even the most pragmatic, hardcore realist liberal would think something like that.


Those aren't for sympathy with the dead Iraqis, those are for their own pockets and possibly their own troops.

Because you say so? What bullshit.

There is no reason why other countries should waste their people and money on something that will fail unless something drastic happens. The US is the big bad superpower, let them fix it.

This is exactly the problem - the US is in need of help and most of the rest of the world has a 'not my problem, let them clean up the mess' attitude.

Without the rest of the world stepping up and actually trying to help, the US will most likely not be able to stabilize the situation before the voters at home decide they are tired of spending a fortune and sacrificing lives when nobody else (aside from the UK and a couple others) is willing to lift a finger.

Since nobody else is willing to chip in, and American war weariness without getting any support, the US will most likely prematurely withdraw. This will send the region into utter chaos, and that is your problem too.

Once it falls into a full-blown civil and then regional war, it will be too late to do much of anything about it. Your petty spitefulness will doom millions.

for once, if the administration of the past 10-15year admit they planned the whole Afghanistan-Iraq-Iran-September11th-AxisOfEvil-Israel-Palestine-Terrorist-MiddleEast thing, maybe things would go better

everyone knows the USA is guilty of planning things

I heard about some Nigerian Intelligence, aparently there is 2 Al-Quaeda sleeper agents in Brighton, and to be honest I do care about collateral damage in Brighton.. but I have to make sure the alleged AQ dies.

*sends 24 Tomahawks (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/USN_Tactical_Tomahawk_launch.jpg/300px-USN_Tactical_Tomahawk_launch.jpg) to Brighton.*

Is that all you've got, our air defences can easily sheild us from that (can't it?)

Is that all you've got, our air defences can easily sheild us from that (can't it?)we shall find out soon :D
keep typing... ;)

*... one Mississippi.. two Mississippi.. ...*

It's rellavent to the group of people who think that this failure in Iraq shows that the USA is week.

I don't think they're a span of seven days. I think they're failed, dishonourable, lying aggressors who will deserve any blowback they get from this.

But there are different sorts of failure, it wasn't so much of a failure that the situation was actually worse then beforehand and certainly not as bad as the situation could turn out to be in Iraq.

I actually laughed out loud at that nonsense. I really did.

I didn't say that the soldiers are completely devoid of respnosbility.

Yet, if they commit atrocities "they're just doing their jobs" and it's "always justified".

It's not rellavent to how good the USA are at fighting a war.

No, we can see how the USA is fighting the war, and it doesn't exactly scream "we know what we're doing".

It just shows that there are a small bunch of retarded prison guards in the army.

Ah, those "isolated" events that keep on happening over and over, sort of like they weren't isolated events at all.

Like there was anything to refute.

Nothing you were able to, seemingly.

I'm saying that the intentions of the fighting today are different from the original intentions.

So you're making shit up as you go along?

Assuming Somalia was an atrocitie, I still don't see how you can blame the soldiers who have no authority to make these decisiosn.

Aye, and the concentration camp guards in Srebrenica had no responsibility whatsoever. They "followed orders" and that makes them innocent!

But are they as good?

No, but it's nice of you to make the point that the military of the USA would be worse than the one from past wars, contradicting yourself in that we couldn't expect it to continue to fail.

So what if some of the press don't know the exact reasons why?

You really weren't paying attention to all the "regular" people interviewed who couldn't make ends or tails of it?

The government sure does.

Tell that to Rudy Guiliani and those who applaud him (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-schwartz/rudy-americas-victim_b_48917.html). He claimed as late as a couple of weeks ago that the blowback explanation was "absurd". The only thing absurd is the type of idiocy he displayed.

It's a war, what the fuck do you expect? Their targets are always legitimate, thats the important thing.

Ah, so when the USA kills civilians it's justified because the USA does, but when Al Qaida does it, it isn't because it's Al Qaida.

There is a reason behind their attacks. Terrorists have no legitimate reason to kill innocent people.

What are you talking about? Al Qaida has many reasons to attack innocent people - revenge for getting fucked over by the USA in the past is but one of a myriad.

Even if the USA decided to nuke every country in the middle east, that still wouldn't justify the 9/11 attacks and it's fucked up beyond repair that you think it's even remotely possible to justify such actions. Not even the most pragmatic, hardcore realist liberal would think something like that.

I think it's fucked up beyond repair that you think civilian casualties and "targets" are "always justified" as long as the attackers have a flag to gather under. Perhaps you should run that by Eddie Izzard.

Because you say so? What bullshit.

Because I can hear what they say, and it ain't about the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis. It's about the cost of the war and about their precious, little troops.

I don't think they're a span of seven days. I think they're failed, dishonourable, lying aggressors who will deserve any blowback they get from this.


It's nice to know you wish death on innocent civilians who had no part in the war.


I actually laughed out loud at that nonsense. I really did.


It sounds wishy washy because I really can't be bothered to go in depth with someone who doesn't understand how those wars were different to this war.


Yet, if they commit atrocities "they're just doing their jobs" and it's "always justified".


Most of the 'atrocities', and I use that term loosely, that you speak of were due to the soldiers commanders not the soldiers themselves (who can get court marshalled for disobeying orders). There are other instances where the soldiers are responsible themselves and I accept that.


No, we can see how the USA is fighting the war, and it doesn't exactly scream "we know what we're doing".


They havn't made any total fuck ups yet, except from the whole idea of the war in general.


Ah, those "isolated" events that keep on happening over and over, sort of like they weren't isolated events at all.


Proportional to the amount of people in the army, it's pretty isolated.


So you're making shit up as you go along?


How am I making that up? Most of the major powers in the USA now accept that there were no WMDs, and now the war is being fought to stabalize the country. Unless you believe the war was for oil, in that case the war was a success.


Aye, and the concentration camp guards in Srebrenica had no responsibility whatsoever. They "followed orders" and that makes them innocent!


Well, they were only following orders. If they stood up to their superiors they would probably have been killed.


No, but it's nice of you to make the point that the military of the USA would be worse than the one from past wars, contradicting yourself in that we couldn't expect it to continue to fail.


I'm making the point that they are different, not that they are worse.


You really weren't paying attention to all the "regular" people interviewed who couldn't make ends or tails of it?


Why do they matter?


Tell that to Rudy Guiliani and those who applaud him (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-schwartz/rudy-americas-victim_b_48917.html). He claimed as late as a couple of weeks ago that the blowback explanation was "absurd". The only thing absurd is the type of idiocy he displayed.


A man who had absolutely no involvement in the Iraq war or handling any intelligence to do with Al Qaida except from "support".


Ah, so when the USA kills civilians it's justified because the USA does, but when Al Qaida does it, it isn't because it's Al Qaida.


I never said either are justified, i'm saying that you can't compare them.


What are you talking about? Al Qaida has many reasons to attack innocent people - revenge for getting fucked over by the USA in the past is but one of a myriad.


Thats not a reason, I worry for your mental health if you think taking revenge out on people who had absolutely nothing to do with that is a reason. And europe has fucked over the middle east more then the USA could wish for, read Andulacies post.


I think it's fucked up beyond repair that you think civilian casualties and "target" are "always justified" as long as the attackers have a flag to gather under. Perhaps you should run that by Eddie Izzard.


I didn't say it was justified.


Because I can hear what they say, and it ain't about the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis. It's about the cost of the war about their precious, little troops.

The only thing your hearing is the bits of sand vibrating in your ears while you have your head stuck under ground.

Gentlemen, it seems this little chat is going nowhere, but don't worry. I am pretty sure I can irritate the both of you.

Your debate is wonderful and I'm pleased we can have it, but you are both dead wrong on some things and right on others.

Hyde first.

It is clear to me that you think the whole morass is salvageable, all we have to do is involve an unwilling RoTW that saw all of this as the worst sort of political opportunism by Mr. Blair and Mr. Bush. In point of fact they are not far off the mark.

Mr. Bush always wanted to go back into Iraq, and before he was elected President we all knew it. This was one of the major reasons I voted against him in 1999, when I was still subject to certain rules that prohibited me from expressing my political opinions publicly (especially when in uniform).

He simply made up convenient circumstances that he and his little fat friend Rove KNEW would swing public opinion his way. His WMD argument? Rubbish. We KNEW that Iraq had no WMD capability. As time marches on and more CIA, DIA and military intelligence documents become free due to FOIA and declassification, more and more sources point up that this was a big, fat stinking lie. When he got caught in this lie his next argument was that Saddam Hussein was in cahoots with Osama bin Laden. This argument? A complete falsehood. Bin Laden is a Wahibist, Saddam Hussein ran a secular government and ruthlessly repressed religious expression including the concept of deen and dawla (Church is state and state is the church). Next argument? Iraq is central to the "War on Terror." This argument not only was disingenuous tripe at the time, but politically dishonest. At the time, the percentage of "foreign fighters" was miniscule. Those rebelling against US authority were Iraqis and displaced Baathists. Now you actually have to add disgruntled Wahibists to the mix, because we provided the PRIME breeding ground for this nonsense.

Mr. Bush and his idiotic, civilian experts ignored past history in the Middle East, and Mr. Blair and his pack of fools didn't bother to look back at the last time Britain wandered into the Middle East and got their fannies whipped. It is well documented that when Britain got involved there in the last century, they were advised that at least 400,000 troops were needed. A really smart General named Shinseki, when asked for his best advice on this invasion in Iraq also said at least 400,000 troops would be needed for the post invasion phase. He got force retired because he wouldn't tell W what he wanted to hear.

Now many other Generals have come out and said this must stop. Bush still doesn't listen.

Now Fass.

I like you, but a lot of your argument is also pretty wooly-headed.

To say that most US soldiers want to commit atrocities on civilians is pretty silly. But war is hell, to think this one is an exception is exceedingly naive. Atrocities happen, war is nasty, brutish and downright uncivilised.

You are correct when you say that committing atrocities and then claiming you were only following orders is wrong. The Nurenburg War Crimes Trials brought this out in plain view. War is no excuse for this sort of reprehensible conduct. As a retired officer, I find the whole excuse fest to be distasteful and wrong. I want those soldiers, Marines and officers punished from the top of the chain of command who issued those orders to those who carried out those illegal orders without questioning them. Alberto Gonzalez be damned. He never spent a day in uniform and has no right to specify that torture is in any way acceptable.

Yes, we are at fault here. We failed to stop this odious man from carrying out his illegal, immoral and unethical political agenda. He was allowed to lie to whip up support in favor of his agenda. He cajoled, bullied and used good men to accomplish his sick goal. In a just world he would have been impeached and convicted years ago.

It is clear that the US is going to need help from the rest of the world. I am not ashamed to say it, we can't do it. We need your help to get us out of there and help the Iraqis through the long, tough patch ahead. We no longer have the moral authority to do that, we pissed that away with this man who sits in the Oval Office.

I have never been an isolationist or an exceptionalist. I know the US has problems and in the modern world, that means we need help and guidance. Europe has the experience and we are in dire need of that help right now. Not just for our sakes, but for the sake of the world.

http://static.flickr.com/6/69250266_8c1f5c979c.jpg

I gotta agree.

This is exactly the problem - the US is in need of help and most of the rest of the world has a 'not my problem, let them clean up the mess' attitude.

Without the rest of the world stepping up and actually trying to help, the US will most likely not be able to stabilize the situation before the voters at home decide they are tired of spending a fortune and sacrificing lives when nobody else (aside from the UK and a couple others) is willing to lift a finger.

Since nobody else is willing to chip in, and American war weariness without getting any support, the US will most likely prematurely withdraw. This will send the region into utter chaos, and that is your problem too.

Once it falls into a full-blown civil and then regional war, it will be too late to do much of anything about it. Your petty spitefulness will doom millions.

All the US really has to do is reinstall Saddam. Just a much worse version of him. Someone more secular, better armed and US backed. Scrap this idea that the US can bring democracy to Iraq within the century and let him have at it. Iraq would be stable and less of a terrorist hotbed in no time. Thats the reality, its just that no one wants to admit it.

All the US really has to do is reinstall Saddam. Just a much worse version of him. Someone more secular, better armed and US backed. Scrap this idea that the US can bring democracy to Iraq within the century and let him have at it. Iraq would be stable and less of a terrorist hotbed in no time. Thats the reality, its just that no one wants to admit it.

and go restart the whole cycle of violence and backstabbing that the U.S began in the 1960's and 70's...:rolleyes:

Exactly, and the OP seems to want more countries to willingly be sucked into the US vortex of inevitable... OK, present and undeniable failure. Yeah, good luck with that.

What's that saying? Misery loves company?

The US military are competant enough to perform any task they are ordered too.

Except peacekeeping in hostile territory.


Remember they do have some of the most advanced strategies and technology in the world, it's not their fault if the orders they are given from the top are bullshit.

Remember that the US army is structured around a Cold War mentality with superpowers as threats. They were built to break things and kill people. Not police areas and keep the peace in occupied territories.

In other words, they suck at stopping insurgencies, as was proven every single time they've tangled with one where they weren't allowed to implement genocidal policies as a 'civilized' power.

This is exactly the problem - the US is in need of help and most of the rest of the world has a 'not my problem, let them clean up the mess' attitude.


Talk to the rest of the world when the US is willing to let others assume command of the situation but is willing to foot the bill. Don't bother while the Chimp still demands control.

It's the US attitude of "We're always right, everyone else is wrong" that's dooming the situation.

Just like that attitude you're coping now.

If by understand, you mean: "They hate our freedom and are jealous! It can't possibly be because of something we did to deserve it."

No civilian deserves to be subjected to a terrorist attack, no matter what. Revenge killings whose only purpose is to kill for the sake of killing are disgusting when the state does them in Capital Punishment, and equally contemptable when a non-governmental group carries them out.

Either way, neither answer is completely correct. Al Quaeda targeted the U.S. because we provided an easy "Them" for the demagouges leading them to target. We were internationally visible, inordinately wealthy, making it easy to equate us with the colonial powers that cut up the middle east after WWI, we had engaged in intervention in Middle Eastern countries, and because we exported the "Hollywood Image" to the world, it was easy to stick the immoral heathen lable on us. To try and factor things down to "They were defending their homelands" (Because Afghanistan was so under threat from the USA prior to 9/11) or "They hate us for a our freedom" is idiotic, and certainly below you.

Of course, since I didn't immediately bow down to you and announce it was all my fault, and it was just because we Americans were picking fights, I must be an arrogant American nationalist, eh Fass? Forgive me if I am unimpressed.

I have never been an isolationist or an exceptionalist. I know the US has problems and in the modern world, that means we need help and guidance. Europe has the experience and we are in dire need of that help right now. Not just for our sakes, but for the sake of the world.

See, now this kind of attitude is more conducive to a global cooperative atmosphere than the Mr "With us or against us" who sits in the White House.

Too bad it won't ever be taken up.

Oh my God...we're in a re-run!
http://img.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/060713/14235__rerun_l.jpg

Aw jeez, not this sh*t again!

I heard about some Nigerian Intelligence, aparently there is 2 Al-Quaeda sleeper agents in Brighton, and to be honest I do care about collateral damage in Brighton.. but I have to make sure the alleged AQ dies.

*sends 24 Tomahawks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:USN_Tactical_Tomahawk_launch.jpg) to Hydesland Hometown.*

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/USN_Tactical_Tomahawk_launch.jpg/300px-USN_Tactical_Tomahawk_launch.jpg

The only time anyone is allowed to launch cruise missiles at Britain is to save the world from space aliens.

The only time anyone is allowed to launch cruise missiles at Britain is to save the world from space aliens.

Executive Order #32066, right?

Don't be silly, every country has it's limits. Even the USA.



No direct link, but we all know that wiping out the Al Qaida is one of the US's ultimate goals.

Horseshit. Ensuring the survival of Al Qaida is the goal. Terror gets Republicans elected, you think they're keen to put the brakes on the gravy train pulling out of Easy Street station?

bump

Horseshit. Ensuring the survival of Al Qaida is the goal. Terror gets Republicans elected, you think they're keen to put the brakes on the gravy train pulling out of Easy Street station?

*insert tin foil hat remark here*

Horseshit. Ensuring the survival of Al Qaida is the goal. Terror gets Republicans elected, you think they're keen to put the brakes on the gravy train pulling out of Easy Street station?

Meh, there will always be wackos out there who want to take potshots at the people who are on the top of the pile which (at the moment anyway) is the U.S. If we can ever destroy al Qaida someone else will replace them. Unless you can come up with a cure for violent fanaticism?

Technically, we could easily wipe out al qaeda, so long as nobody cared about massive collateral damage.
There is no salvaging this situation at this point. We have done so many things so wrong for such a long time that things have just gone to shit. The list of things we should have done differently but didn't is ridiculously long because our pres wanted to play general despite the fact that he couldn't win in Starcraft.

He always has this ace up his sleeve: "Nuclear launch detected"

It has been held that hell is something along the lines of an eternally recurring event. This is it.

It has been held that hell is something along the lines of an eternally recurring event. This is it.
Are you talking about the Iraq war, or the threads about it?

Are you talking about the Iraq war, or the threads about it?

Threads about it. We could always discuss Islam in general after this, or communism; that hasn't been done in a few weeks....

Yes, the US administration mishandled things and did not plan appropriately for what would happen after the invasion. Their concept of diplomacy was little better than an 8 year old watching old John Wayne movies. Even most of the American people agree with you there, but are you all really so petty you are willing to see death and destruction on a massive scale just so you can point out that the US administration made a mistake?


yep. about time.
you know, Robert S. McNamara, former US defence secretary during Vietnam, said that if you can't convince "nations with comparable values", meaning the West, then you shouldn't invade. the US had only Britain- and none of their peoples would have agreed, without an extensive program to terrorize them and make them scared and afraid. it is about time that you taste failure, because you can't learn from histry. why should we europeans put our soldier's lives under threat, and jeopardize our citizens?
U FIX IT!

Executive Order #32066, right?

No, that is Directive 66. After all, as Eddie Izzard once observed that Americans have to cast Britons as the bad guys...example: Star Wars, a whole bloody Death Star full of English actors. <chuckle>

http://static.flickr.com/6/69250266_8c1f5c979c.jpg

That is used way too much...


Anyways, it will probably, well, already has, I imagine, emboldened nations not friendly to the US to pursue their own goals, since the US could not handle rebuilding Iraq. But then again, the US military is amazing at taking out nations...not so good for rebuilding...

Unless you can come up with a cure for violent fanaticism?


Tea. Fair trade, Earl Gray tea.

Tea. Fair trade, Earl Gray tea.

Wasn't tea the reason the British East India company was formed to sack India?

:D

Wasn't tea the reason the British East India company was formed to sack India?

:D


The East India Company was formed because they had the insight to know that Jack Sparrow would need some one to use to recieve the heart from Commador Norrington. Who ever blames tea is clearly misguided.



(Yes I'm aware of eastern imperialism and general European history, leave me alone)

No, that is Directive 66. After all, as Eddie Izzard once observed that Americans have to cast Britons as the bad guys...example: Star Wars, a whole bloody Death Star full of English actors. <chuckle>

Sh*t, yeah. Good point. *bows*
...point driven home ever more, since i appreciated the 30th anniversary with Eps iii + iv.

Horseshit. Ensuring the survival of Al Qaida is the goal. Terror gets Republicans elected, you think they're keen to put the brakes on the gravy train pulling out of Easy Street station?

I've heard some stupid shit, but you might get the cake.

I suppose 9/11 was an inside job then?

I've heard some stupid shit, but you might get the cake.

I suppose 9/11 was an inside job then?

And you suppose Osama Bin Ladin made that 2004 video announcement in the sincere hopes that John Kerry would be elected?

yep. about time.
you know, Robert S. McNamara, former US defence secretary during Vietnam, said that if you can't convince "nations with comparable values", meaning the West, then you shouldn't invade. the US had only Britain- and none of their peoples would have agreed, without an extensive program to terrorize them and make them scared and afraid. it is about time that you taste failure, because you can't learn from histry. why should we europeans put our soldier's lives under threat, and jeopardize our citizens?
U FIX IT!

The UK was not the only nation to provide support; many western nations backed the US.

Germany, France, Belgium and Russia do not constitute the rest of the world. In those cases they had significant financial reasons for keeping Saddam in power (except Belgium as far as I know)

The UK was not the only nation to provide support; many western nations backed the US.

Germany, France, Belgium and Russia do not constitute the rest of the world. In those cases they had significant financial reasons for keeping Saddam in power (except Belgium as far as I know)

Which Western nations back the invasion?

Which Western nations back the invasion?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_Forces

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Multinational_force_in_iraq_countries-_Feb.07.PNG

There you go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_Forces

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Multinational_force_in_iraq_countries-_Feb.07.PNG

There you go.

That was kind of my point, the are only about 4 full Western nations on that list. Hardly an over whelming majority.

And not only that, many of the ones on that list made only token contributions to the force, for which they were rewarded by various gifts/ promises of aid, investment etc. I think Tonga sent 20 lads and a car. If they had genuine support, they wouldnt have had to act outside the UN charter.

That was kind of my point, the are only about 4 full Western nations on that list. Hardly an over whelming majority.
And most people in those countries that did tag along didn't want to send their troops anyway. Thanks, Blair. You got that legacy you wanted.

Look a little harder - just glancing at the first couple names of countries in a long list is hardly a good basis for backing up an argument.

Most of the countries of Europe contributed troops to the invasion - I hardly consider that 'the US went in alone'. Granted some of those contributions were rather small, but Estonia is not exactly known for its huge military presence around the world.

Look a little harder - just glancing at the first couple names of countries in a long list is hardly a good basis for backing up an argument.

Most of the countries of Europe contributed troops to the invasion - I hardly consider that 'the US went in alone'. Granted some of those contributions were rather small, but Estonia is not exactly known for its huge military presence around the world.

Good! Get Estonia to fix it. Go to Tallinn and demand more help and more manpower. You (and, seemingly, Estonia) broke it, you (and, seemingly, Estonia) fix it. Or you'll foot the bill or pay us back for our trouble?

And you suppose Osama Bin Ladin made that 2004 video announcement in the sincere hopes that John Kerry would be elected?

As it turns out, keeping the Republicans in power has kept him alive all along.
They're good enough at the bait & switch for us to continue to be divisive over the pseudo-sensibility of invading and losing Iraq while bin Laden and his safely-shuttled extended family manages to keep a happy employment with oil and construction services, chuckling all the while.

Actually without fear tactics about al-quida and Islamic terrorism, the Republicans have very little to justify themselves on, which of course means they can't differentiate between critics and 'terrorists'. 9/11 was Christmas, birthday, easter for 100 years all rolled up into one package for the Republicans.

Actually without fear tactics about al-quida and Islamic terrorism, the Republicans have very little to justify themselves on, which of course means they can't differentiate between critics and 'terrorists'. 9/11 was Christmas, birthday, easter for 100 years all rolled up into one package for the Republicans.

Sadly and lamentably true.
:(