NationStates Jolt Archive

Where's the outcry? Where's the horror that almost 4,000 Americans have died in a foreign country that we invaded I'm almost as angry at the American people as I am the president. I think Americans have become apathetic and placid about the whole thing. We need to take action in order to be recognized Congress doesn't listen to us, there has to be something that can be done, I might sound naive, stupid whatever, but i'm convinced in someway we can do something.

fewer and fewer people support the war. more and more want to just bring the troops home and be done with it.

legally its hard to force the administration to do it. the democrats dont have veto proof support. so i guess what we have to do is pressure our republican congressmen to join with the democrats and stop the occupation of iraq.

is that what you had in mind?

rallies aren't doing anything, teenagers are revolting because they have their XBOX, enough people don't want to take action.

rallies aren't doing anything, teenagers are revolting because they have their XBOX, enough people don't want to take action.

What then? Protests? Sabotage? Armed Socialist Revolution(tm)?

How about we take everyone who ever supported the War and gas them? I'm sure I have some spare Zyklon B in the garage.

Would you have given up after 4000 deaths in WW2? thing, It tookhundereds of thousands to stop Hitler. Are you saying any war that has casualties must be given up on?

Edit: Not to say I am apathetic about the deaths of our soldiers, but this is war.

don't tell me you support this war

don't tell me you support this war

You support this war.

Would you have given up after 4000 deaths in WW2? thing, It tookhundereds of thousands to stop Hitler. Are you saying any war that has casualties must be given up on?

Edit: Not to say I am apathetic about the deaths of our soldiers, but this is war.


Thats my thoughts exactly ... im not saying i supported going into Iraq (i can understand why they went into Afganastan) but i cant believe people are moaning and saying pull out .... yes troops have died and it sucks .... but do the USA really belive the Extremeists will leave them alone at home if they withdraw .... and they are really willing to leave Iraq self impode

A large majority wanted to invade Afganastan after sept 11 .... but now theyve done it they just think it stupid that everything wasnt sorted in the first few days ... i really dont get why all the people who backed it now want to pull out (and i cant believe those that didnt agree with Iraq or agree want the troops out of there knowing full well what will happen there if they do)

im just praying im part of the silent(ish) majority who agree/dont agree but see the need to stick it out

Would you have given up after 4000 deaths in WW2? thing, It tookhundereds of thousands to stop Hitler. Are you saying any war that has casualties must be given up on?

Edit: Not to say I am apathetic about the deaths of our soldiers, but this is war.

this is not war, its occupation. we won the war and met our goal in iraq years ago.

don't tell me you support this war

Two people I work with support the war. And one of them even likes George Bush :eek:.

don't tell me you support this war
I don't think whether or not one supports it (whatever "it" actually is, these days) is all that important.

The real point is that the leadership has no idea what their goal is and how to reach it. One can accept that soldiers die willingly for some cause, one could even support it. But the cause has got to be there.

The real failure of the US Administration (and by extension the political system which allowed it) is that it hasn't learned anything or put forward any serious, pragmatic or even logical solution concepts. Tactically it's been behind the times from Day 1, strategically it's got nowhere to go.

Incidentally Afghanistan is heading in the same direction, which I find even worse.

this is not war, its occupation. we won the war and met our goal in iraq years ago.

If its occupation then i fully support withdrawing .... but the its the troops in Iraq that are stopping massive bloodshed right now there ... if they pulled out now you honestly think Iraq would be peaceful??

If its occupation then i fully support withdrawing .... but the its the troops in Iraq that are stopping massive bloodshed right now there ... if they pulled out now you honestly think Iraq would be peaceful??

It is hardly 'peaceful' now.

Not that I would know firsthand.

american soldiers are more important than the Iraqi people right now. The country at the moment can't be stablizied it's a precarious situation and look at the treatment soldiers recieve when they get back, government barely helps them with medical bills.

So are any of you going to do something?

If its occupation then i fully support withdrawing .... but the its the troops in Iraq that are stopping massive bloodshed right now there ... if they pulled out now you honestly think Iraq would be peaceful??

its hard to say isnt it.

the question is would there be MORE bloodshed as the iraqis are still taking the majority of the damage.

when we removed hussein and the baathist party from power, we destabilized the country. only the iraqis can restabilize it.

I happen to agree with the OP to some extent, blaming your government can only go so far, America still has a limited democracy in which it's legitimacy from a large part comes from popularity. The problem here is the American people, not to sound offensive but you are superficial, stupid and beholden to fairy-tail views of the world in good vs evil notions, and as such hysteria makes you infinitely manipulable to your political elites. Once the American people can grow up and not be held hostage to silly notions of Manifest Destiny and moral absolutes, then your politicians will stop manipulating your stupidity for political capital. Americans just need to realize that they're politicians are cynical beings, they don't believe a word of the theocratic, nationalistic bs they feed you, they just know it keeps you in line and placates the masses so they can remain in power.

So, in short, Leo Strauss is laughing in his grave.

The problem here is the American people, not to sound offensive but you are superficial, stupid and beholden to fairy-tail views of the world in good vs evil notions, and as such hysteria makes you infinitely manipulable to your political elites.

Not the best effort I've seen.

american soldiers are more important than the Iraqi people right now. The country at the moment can't be stablizied it's a precarious situation and look at the treatment soldiers recieve when they get back, government barely helps them with medical bills.

So are any of you going to do something?


Yeah i know what you mean ... the soldiers get treated like poo by the government and then the public shit on them for doing there job ... lose lose situ

Im sure the average Iraqi person is so glad you think that US soldiers who caused this shit (under orders and in afgan under public opinion) are worth more than there lives

Yep ... if it ever comes up for a vote in the UK to withdraw i cannot with with a clear heart vote for them to withdraw (when it is stable over there hell yeah get em out straight away!!)


as to would there be more bloodshed there with out the troops ... more iraqis have died at each others hands with ease compared to our troop losses ... you cant think that would change could you (or even get less?)?

Not the best effort I've seen.

Sometimes the truth hurts.

The real point is that the leadership has no idea what their goal is and how to reach it.

That. In a nutshell.

And 'where's the outrage?' Where have you been? I go rarely a day without encountering some protest of some kind for the war.

I happen to agree with the OP to some extent, blaming your government can only go so far, America still has a limited democracy in which it's legitimacy from a large part comes from popularity. The problem here is the American people, not to sound offensive but you are superficial, stupid and beholden to fairy-tail views of the world in good vs evil notions, and as such hysteria makes you infinitely manipulable to your political elites. Once the American people can grow up and not be held hostage to silly notions of Manifest Destiny and moral absolutes, then your politicians will stop manipulating your stupidity for political capital. Americans just need to realize that they're politicians are cynical beings, they don't believe a word of the theocratic, nationalistic bs they feed you, they just know it keeps you in line and placates the masses so they can remain in power.

So, in short, Leo Strauss is laughing in his grave.

It's true

That. In a nutshell.

And 'where's the outrage?' Where have you been? I go rarely a day without encountering some protest of some kind for the war.

Na, not really, I mean the American people have just become so apathetic by liberal materialism that only really a minority care about such things, I mean where are the city-size uprisings we saw in the Vietnam War period, the police beating up university students? No... The US has lost it's nerve...

The Average Iraqi doesn't care if Yankees feel that their lives are worth less than American soldiers. They want the Yankee soldiers gone far more than any half-assed Bush supporters who voted for him in 04 before voting against him in 06.

It will never be stable over there. You can't wait out people who have 5000 years of history on a patch of land, fighting against a tiny occupation force from the other side of the world. Whether the occupation is opposed by a nice guy like Gandhi or a bastard like Al-Zarqawi, the natives win because they have an inherent staying power far beyond the riches we can waste on war.

The sooner we get out, the sooner we can move on. If you believe that the war in Iraq is a front in a larger war on terror, remember that you couldn't have a D-Day without a Dunkirk. The greatest military sin is to commit further resources to a failing strategy.

Na, not really, I mean the American people have just become so apathetic by liberal materialism that only really a minority care about such things, I mean where are the city-size uprisings we saw in the Vietnam War period, the police beating up university students? No... The US has lost it's nerve...

I blame the "baby boom" generation for all the ills in America. ;)

Im a brit ... i never voted for Bush (especially on a wave of vengence against Afaganastan like the USAers did ..... and i definatly DIDNT vote Blair


You want to blame someone ... blame any USA person that wanted to go into Afganistan after 9.11 (which was enough of the USA to put him in power ... its not his fault theyve all left him to face the shit now hes done it

and yep i remeber the history of dunkirk .... i also remeber that depite the odds etc we carried on and prevailed (not saying it works every time) ...but would you have rather us give into the Nazis? (and thats the difference ... you look at one battle not the whole thing)..... people saying pull out are hardly ispiring iraqis that it will be safe soon but giving the extremists new found hope

Keep in mind that Bush's approval rating is only 30%; 210,000,000 Americans disagree with his decisions. I know not a single person that supports the war; the main reason Bush was re-elected was the fact that, for just that short amount of time in 2001-2002, he had managed to unite the country after 9/11. Admittedly, there is little in the way of active protest today by any large percentage of the people, as in the Vietnam era, but don't act as though we are just totally in accordance with the Republicans. I don't see how the president after Bush, whoever that may be, can possibly not begin to withdraw from Iraq, especially if s/he expects to get re-elected.

To be honest though, you do have points. America really does need to enact some serious changes in the way its political system is handled if it expects to redeem its reputation.

Im a brit ... i never voted for Bush (especially on a wave of vengence against Afaganastan like the USAers did ..... and i definatly DIDNT vote Blair


You want to blame someone ... blame any USA person that wanted to go into Afganistan after 9.11 (which was enough of the USA to put him in power ... its not his fault theyve all left him to face the shit now hes done it

and yep i remeber the history of dunkirk .... i also remeber that depite the odds etc we carried on and prevailed ..... people saying pull out are hardly ispiring iraqis that it will be safe soon but giving the extremists new found hope

It was only logical to go after Bin Laden in Afghanistan.

agrees .... but your not trying to say you only want to withdraw from Iraq are you?? and if so considering they are pretty close what do you think will happen there?

(i think going into Iraq was friggin stupid! ... but its done now we cant rewind time)

I think that the last reason given for staying in Iraq- to allow for some modicum of stability- is not a valid reason. Iraq is a geopolitical abortion where various groups were forced to live together under a single apparatus of compulsion by imperialist powers. It cannot be a stable country because it lends itself to domination by a certain group over all others. The only way it can be peaceful is if the political union is dissolved, and this would necessarily entail a withdrawal of soldiers upholding the current order. I am certain that the more people realize this, the more they would stop thinking of the war as some sort of stopgap and the more they would vehemently they would oppose it.

Na, not really, I mean the American people have just become so apathetic by liberal materialism that only really a minority care about such things, I mean where are the city-size uprisings we saw in the Vietnam War period, the police beating up university students? No... The US has lost it's nerve...

San Francisco shut down on the eve of the war, Times Square did as well. Seriously, I don't know what cave you guys live in that you don't see the constant distaste for this war.

I think that the last reason given for staying in Iraq- to allow for some modicum of stability- is not a valid reason. Iraq is a geopolitical abortion where various groups were forced to live together under a single apparatus of compulsion by imperialist powers. It cannot be a stable country because it lends itself to domination by a certain group over all others. The only way it can be peaceful is if the political union is dissolved, and this would necessarily entail a withdrawal of soldiers upholding the current order. I am certain that the more people realize this, the more they would stop thinking of the war as some sort of stopgap and the more they would vehemently they would oppose it.

The kurdish areas are now safe(ish)/stable arent they??

(and just so you know i DO 'vehemently' oppose it but theres no way id put a british life above an iraqi life as to me thats almost rasicm and if us being there saves more lives then imo it makes people saying pull out as bad as the extremists as they have no care for life either and base there hatred on where your from/ your supposed religion) ... *edit* and unfortunalty in the case of Iraq (not Afgan but you want troops out of there) we are responsible for most of the Iraqi deaths as a country (as it was our troops .... (they dont see a differnece between Bush(who ordered it grrrrr) and an american?!?))either at our hands or by the sectarian violence (which is more)

The kurdish areas are now safe(ish)/stable arent they??

(and just so you know i DO 'vehemently' oppose it but theres no way id put a british life above an iraqi life as to me thats almost rasicm and if us being there saves more lives then imo it makes people saying pull out as bad as the extremists as they have no care for life either and base there hatred on where your from/ your supposed religion) ... *edit* and unfortunalty in the case of Iraq (not Afgan but you want troops out of there) we are responsible for most of the Iraqi deaths as a country (as it was our troops .... (they dont see a differnece between Bush(who ordered it grrrrr) and an american?!?))either at our hands or by the sectarian violence (which is more)

It wouldn't save more lives. They are afraid of each other, and the reason why they are afraid of one another is because they each have in their reach the means to terrorize one another. Take away those means, let them hold each other at a mutually agreed upon distance, and they will calm down. But to militarily enforce these means will only encourage more death.

It wouldn't save more lives. They are afraid of each other, and the reason why they are afraid of one another is because they each have in their reach the means to terrorize one another. Take away those means, let them hold each other at a mutually agreed upon distance, and they will calm down. But to militarily enforce these means will only encourage more death.

sorry i was under the impression there was a minority and a much bigger majority there and the only reason it was so peaceful was sadam was in power and was a dictator with the army backing him ... i will be shocked if you can tell me the secartian vilonce was as bad/worse than it is now before (and wouldnt be when the troops come out (or are you saying it will go back to not terrorizing each other after whats happened) ...*edit* just realised theres no way your saying it will be peaceful there if the troops came out as i dont think anyone is that silly or did i really read what you said right?? (everyone would just rather it was Iraqis and not US Uk/ whoever troops died)

Not to mention Sadam was the whole reason the Talaban/Alwhatsit had no influnece in Iraq but again im prob wrong on that to as that wouldnt be why they are now also have links to them in Iraq

sorry i was under the impression there was a minority and a much bigger majority there and the only reason it was so peaceful was sadam was in power and was a dictator with the army backing him ... i will be shocked if you can tell me the secartian vilonce was as bad/worse than it is now before (and wouldnt be when the troops come out (or are you saying it will go back to not terrorizing each other after whats happened)

Not to mention Sadam was the whole reason the Talaban/Alwhatsit had no influnece in Iraq but again im prob wrong on that to as that wouldnt be why they are now also have links to them in Iraq

I never said the sectarian violence was as bad. I am saying that there can be no peace in Iraq until the notion of Iraq is banished from the geopolitical sphere. You can only have a strongman or sectarian war so long as there is a means for one group there to oppress the other. And keeping soldiers in Iraq will never allow for a humane situation, because those soldiers will be supporting an inhumane order.

Ok we've already established this war is unjustified I started this thread what else do we need to do other than protests? We send letters to our senators they don't listen? We'd have to have a protest at least everyday or making some serious statement.

Ok we've already established this war is unjustified I started this thread what else do we need to do other than protests? We send letters to our senators they don't listen? We'd have to have a protest at least everyday or making some serious statement.

If we are going to de-legitimize the war even more, we have to speak on a more intellectual level. Protests won't work; seeing a protest on the news would not encourage any resistance to the war past some kind of herd-mentality (and considering the level of emotional outburst in protests, it might hurt the cause more than it helps.) I think it would be better to pass out some kind of leaflets or the like giving specific reasons why there should be resistance, so as to speak on a more individual level.

coughs *ireland* .... took 27 years but hey atleast it was realistic to not think it would be done in a short time

The kurd area??

Maybe its not realistic to back someone to invade somehwere like Afaganstan and then moan when its not all sorted in 1 week??(slight exageration but you get the drift)


and yay just because Iraq wasnt sorted in a few days it becomes unrealistic so lets give up seen as we never gave Bush our backing for this one next door to the other one we backed.... but sod it while were at it will get troops out of the place we voted (and you basically voted bush in on this) Afagan to and then we can say yeah we did what we set out to (mess up 2 countries instead of one?)


and lmao you said this allow for a humane situation in the same sentence you now saying that sectarian vilonce is bad (but hey atleast your not saying they will just hold each other at arms length if the troops pull out anymore)

If we are going to de-legitimize the war even more, we have to speak on a more intellectual level. Protests won't work; seeing a protest on the news would not encourage any resistance to the war past some kind of herd-mentality (and considering the level of emotional outburst in protests, it might hurt the cause more than it helps.) I think it would be better to pass out some kind of leaflets or the like giving specific reasons why there should be resistance, so as to speak on a more individual level.

agrees .... protests dont work :mad: if they did bush and blair would have listened and not sent our troops off to Iraq aswell :mad:


as to what to do to get this sorted.... whats your morality/ideals like?

coughs *ireland* .... took 27 years but hey atleast it was realistic to not think it would be done in a short time

The kurd area??

Maybe its not realistic to back someone to invade somehwere like Afaganstan and then moan when its not all sorted in 1 week??(slight exageration but you get the drift)


and yay just because Iraq wasnt sorted in a few days it becomes unrealistic so lets give up seen as we never gave Bush our backing for this one next door to the other one we backed.... but sod it while were at it will get troops out of the place we voted (and you basically voted bush in on this) Afagan to and then we can say yeah we did what we set out to (mess up 2 countries instead of one?)


and lmao you said this in the same sentence you now saying that sectarian vilonce is bad (but hey atleast your not saying they will just hold each other at arms length if the troops pull out anymore)

I really don't think you're paying careful attention to what I'm saying.

Iraq cannot be a stable nation-state; it is too heterogeneous and its groups have too much bad-blood in its history. The best thing to happen would be to have some sort of political seperation, into as many pieces as possible. That way there would be no overarching state that would be capable of terrorizing the populace as a whole; tyrannical regimes require a populace to externalize their costs onto.

In a highly decentralized system, tyranny would be almost impossible because A.) people can just move on over to a more inviting location, thus ruling out most domestic tyranny, and B.) autarky will be impossible because they will be decentralized and dependent on mutually beneficial exchanges with their neighbors, thus ruling out external tyranny. Keeping troops in Iraq to preserve an inherently flawed political union will only exacerbate disturbances of peace (whether sectarian or governmental), not solve them.

Here's a fact: We lost 4,000 troops. Big deal we lost WAY more in WWII.

Second: Until Iraq takes control puling out now will have wasted 4 years of work and 4000 lives will be in vain. We need to stop being cowardly and pulling out because a few of our men got killed. That gives a moral victory to the terrorists. I mean we left Somalia because 18 men got killed! Boy did that ever do wonders for Bin Laden. The U.S. can't be pushovers just because we lose a few men and women. That is what they signed up to do protect their country and protection equals sacrifice. You can't fix a country in a day Iraq is going to take time! If the Iraqis really didn't want a democratic state, than every last man woman and child would have driven us out by now.

Thirdly: To this date we still have bases in Germany, and Japan thus we still have troops over there we will still have troops in Iraq.

And I think the war was perfectly justified, to fight terror liberate the Iraqis and get rid of a tyrant. Americans need to stop being selfish frankly. We wouldn't have entered WWII if it weren't for Pearl Harbor. We ignored Afghanistan because of the oil companies, and we ceritanly didn't stick around after the Soviet-Afghan War.

agrees .... protests dont work :mad: if they did bush and blair would have listened and not sent our troops off to Iraq aswell :mad:


as to what to do to get this sorted.... whats your morality/ideals like?

What are my morality/ideals? I'm a common-law anarchist, and oppose the war on the grounds that they encourage tyranny and political privilege at home and abroad. I believe in leadership through mutually beneficial exchange, and natural authority.

I really don't think you're paying careful attention to what I'm saying.

Iraq cannot be a stable nation-state; it is too heterogeneous and its groups have too much bad-blood in its history. The best thing to happen would be to have some sort of political seperation, into as many pieces as possible. That way there would be no overarching state that would be capable of terrorizing the populace as a whole; tyrannical regimes require a populace to externalize their costs onto.

In a highly decentralized system, tyranny would be almost impossible because A.) people can just move on over to a more inviting location, thus ruling out most domestic tyranny, and B.) autarky will be impossible because they will be decentralized and dependent on mutually beneficial exchanges with their neighbors, thus ruling out external tyranny. Keeping troops in Iraq to preserve an inherently flawed political union will only exacerbate disturbances of peace (whether sectarian or governmental), not solve them.

no i read understood and gave you two (atleast one (ireland)) very good and simliar situations as proof you are not right
... and politcal seperation with out our troops there is called 'Civil War' in anyone elses books ... which has your arguement about them calming down sort of shot down (well unless you think they would sit down and talk with out us there (please dont tell me your going to believe that will happen?!?)

and even though shoots down the second bit you want troops out of Afgan to where there is no civil war just Alqwhatist and the talaban (who are also moving into and now causing trouble in pakistan)

What are my morality/ideals? I'm a common-law anarchist, and oppose the war on the grounds that they encourage tyranny and political privilege at home and abroad. I believe in leadership through mutually beneficial exchange, and natural authority.


by moral i meant more along the lines of try and help rebuild iraq (as in building etc .. not the stupid attempts so far) or or leave them to it .... or peoples lives... iraqis can die as long as USA people only die on home soil and not there (because lets face it there is a proper hornets nest stirred up over there now that no one can deny(and by that i mean anti USA/UK feeling and would be terrorists))

seriously you lot compare it to vietnam etc (maybe an assumption but lots of anti war say look blah blah).... you got off lightly after you withdrew .... you think BinLaden isnt going to get attacks on USA homesoil ever agin (or his minions?) then what are you going to say .... send special forces in to take him out?? (or is small scale invasion different?)

Personally I would like us to pullout of everywhere on the globe, europe, japan, everywhere. I am tired of the U.S being the police of the world. We should focus on our internal affairs, such as paying off our debts and stoping illegal immigration. The world is ungratefull for all the policing we do for them so I say hang them out to dry.

Edit: If we put a portion of the troops we had in iraq on the southern border im sure it would slow down illegal immigration a lot.

why should the rest of the world be "thankful" for having our self destructiveness shoved down their throats?

i don't know if america's eventual fall from world dominance will make this world a less brutal place, but it seems pretty unambiguous that its current bullying is making it a more brutal one.

=^^=
.../\...

This world has always been strongest survives, I know the U.S isnt perfect. We have made some bad blunders as well. But this world would be a worse place without us, think of all the posative contributions we have made.

Personally I would like us to pullout of everywhere on the globe, europe, japan, everywhere. I am tired of the U.S being the police of the world. We should focus on our internal affairs, such as paying off our debts and stoping illegal immigration. The world is ungratefull for all the policing we do for them so I say hang them out to dry.

Edit: If we put a portion of the troops we had in iraq on the southern border im sure it would slow down illegal immigration a lot.


yeah would give the insurgents/whatever something to stop and shoot at on the way across the border til everyone moaned at losses and pulled them out giving them free access to cross the border
(*edit thats meant to have humour in it but a bit of reality to(it read like i was just being an arse with out this edit)

(and i think the USA is a pita politically lol but with stuff like Afaganastan i dont blame them at all)

as for americas down fall ..... wont happen USA will be around for ever until the world becomes one(if that ever happens) but other countries will catch up and surpass it thanks to the USA previous contributions to technologies etc

by moral i meant more along the lines of try and help rebuild iraq (as in building etc .. not the stupid attempts so far) or or leave them to it .... or iraqis can die as long as USA people only die on home soil and not there

I would definitely support trading with them and encouraging investment in order to create prosperity and friendship, but I think it would also be a good idea to give shares to all Iraqis in any oil that has been or is being extracted. This would encourage good stewardship of Iraq's natural resources and allow for its populace to get back onto its feet and allow them to work together to safeguard the wealth out of mutually shared self-interest. (I would do the same with any nationally owned assets. Local assets would go to locals.)

Personally I would like us to pullout of everywhere on the globe, europe, japan, everywhere. I am tired of the U.S being the police of the world. We should focus on our internal affairs, such as paying off our debts and stoping illegal immigration. The world is ungratefull for all the policing we do for them so I say hang them out to dry.

I, also, would like to stop policing the world. It makes no one better off on either side.

no i read understood and gave you two (atleast one (ireland)) very good and simliar situations as proof you are not right
... and politcal seperation with out our troops there is called 'Civil War' in anyone elses books ... which has your arguement about them calming down sort of shot down (well unless you think they would sit down and talk with out us there (please dont tell me your going to believe that will happen?!?)

Ireland was/is a mess because its local inhabitants were not given powers of subsidiarity; instead, they were forced to live together in one union. They had quite a bit of peace before Cromwell subjugated them and turned them into a statist order instead of a patchwork of reciprocal obligations. The Kurds suffered while under Hussein, and are only doing well now because of relative autonomy. To give them more autonomy would make them even better off; same thing with the rest of Iraq.

And we would not need to force them to talk because there would be no fear of subjugation under a strong man, which is the primary cause behind the conflict. It wouldn't be perfect, seeing as how there is still a great deal of animosity, but you can't really fix that with soldiers. The best thing to do would be to let them weigh the benefits of peaceful cooperation at a distance versus fruitless violence; whereas in the current system violence is seen as necessary for fear of the other groups gaining dominance over the state.

and even though shoots down the second bit you want troops out of Afgan to where there is no civil war just Alqwhatist and the talaban (who are also moving into and now causing trouble in pakistan)

The reason why there is trouble in Afghanistan is because the US is threatening to destroy the livelihood of opium farmers. If we were to allow the Afghans to decide on this issue, and not US drug warriors (again, subsidiarity), there wouldn't be anywhere near the level of fighting we are encountering.

I would definitely support trading with them and encouraging investment in order to create prosperity and friendship, but I think it would also be a good idea to give shares to all Iraqis in any oil that has been or is being extracted. This would encourage good stewardship of Iraq's natural resources and allow for its populace to get back onto its feet and allow them to work together to safeguard the wealth out of mutually shared self-interest. (I would do the same with any nationally owned assets. Local assets would go to locals.)

awsome ideas there that i bet the UK USA hasnt thought of to help rebuild it


Ireland was/is a mess because its local inhabitants were not given powers of subsidiarity; instead, they were forced to live together in one union. They had quite a bit of peace before Cromwell subjugated them and turned them into a statist order instead of a patchwork of reciprocal obligations. The Kurds suffered while under Hussein, and are only doing well now because of relative autonomy. To give them more autonomy would make them even better off; same thing with the rest of Iraq.
Its taken time but barr a training camp UK have no soldiers there they just about have a goverment .. sectarian vilonce is virtually gone ... it will still be a long time before there is full unity but im pretty sure things are getting prosperous over there now
Agrees on the Kurd bit .... but how did the Kurd bit get made and how did it remain safe with sadam still around??


And we would not need to force them to talk because there would be no fear of subjugation under a strong man, which is the primary cause behind the conflict. It wouldn't be perfect, seeing as how there is still a great deal of animosity, but you can't really fix that with soldiers. The best thing to do would be to let them weigh the benefits of peaceful cooperation at a distance versus fruitless violence; whereas in the current system violence is seen as necessary for fear of the other groups gaining dominance over the state.
That would be great if a strongman would suddenly appear ... unfortunatly the two strongest Iraqis at the mo are telling there people to kill each other so they become the one strong man .... you expect one of them to just yeah okay i give up you be the one as soon (or soon after) we suddenly pull out?? .. having a laugh as soon as date is given they will step up killing each other more so that they are the one when the troops are gone if possible)(and step up attacks to get a USA/UK kill trophy as a prize for there part)
Its down to the masses of people not the one strong man for peace to regien


The reason why there is trouble in Afghanistan is because the US is threatening to destroy the livelihood of opium farmers. If we were to allow the Afghans to decide on this issue, and not US drug warriors (again, subsidiarity), there wouldn't be anywhere near the level of fighting we are encountering.

Just wondering who do you think most of the money from the drugs go to?? and any suggestions for where that money was spent?? (hint .. maybe a couple of plane training camps etc for starters)
but agrees on a bit of what you said ..win the opium farmers round some how and everything (well most) would be sorted

This world has always been strongest survives, I know the U.S isnt perfect. We have made some bad blunders as well. But this world would be a worse place without us, think of all the posative contributions we have made.

this is a major misconception on several counts. it is the FITTIST not the 'strongest', and the strongest are frequently NOT the most fit. rather it is those most able to coexist, even if that coexistence might in some cases mean controlling each other's population by consuming each other, it is none the less those that are best able to perpetuate a sustainable balance.

everyone has made contributions, BOTH positive AND negative. it would only be a different world, not automaticly a better or worse one. nor is it improbable that someone else would have made, in at least some cases, functionally similar contrabutions if "we", whoever "we" are in this context, hadn't.

=^^=
.../\...

this is a major misconception on several counts. it is the FITTIST not the 'strongest', and the strongest are frequently NOT the most fit. rather it is those most able to coexist, even if that coexistence might in some cases mean controlling each other's population by consuming each other, it is none the less those that are best able to perpetuate a sustainable balance.

everyone has made contributions, BOTH positive AND negative. it would only be a different world, not automaticly a better or worse one. nor is it improbable that someone else would have made, in at least some cases, functionally similar contrabutions if "we", whoever "we" are in this context, hadn't.

=^^=
.../\...

Your right I shouldnt have said "we" there are people from other nations here. I meant americans. And in hindsite fittest is more fitting than strongest, however I still stick by what I said.

Send all the troops you want, the Gulf War shall not be won. Why? Because America is fighting the people of Iraq, as it did in Vietnam. And as history has proven to us, time and time again, you cannot win a war against the people. Not in this day and age.

Rally as much as you like, your opinion will only matter when it comes time to vote. If America continues to believe it can defeat terrorism by invasions, it will continue to be defeated. Only when America negotiates, and ceases to be hated by the rest of the world, will it have victory.

Yes. No one likes America.

As for America policing the world, the world doesn't need it. The UN should police, and America should stop pretending they want peace. They have caused more wars then they have stopped.

Send all the troops you want, the Gulf War shall not be won. Why? Because America is fighting the people of Iraq, as it did in Vietnam. And as history has proven to us, time and time again, you cannot win a war against the people. Not in this day and age.
Nope if that was the case america would win as people are easy to spot and shoot ... they are still only fighting (what ever it is being called now) insurgents/terrorists etc who hide amoungst the people .... if they didnt hide theyd be dead problem solved

Rally as much as you like, your opinion will only matter when it comes time to vote. If America continues to believe it can defeat terrorism by invasions, it will continue to be defeated. Only when America negotiates, and ceases to be hated by the rest of the world, will it have victory.
agrees with everything barr the hated by the rest of the world ... the USA is a pita but so are most countries (about the only country that is generally liked by lots is Australia)

Yes. No one likes America.
*insert 'barr me' in there

As for America policing the world, the world doesn't need it. The UN should police, and America should stop pretending they want peace. They have caused more wars then they have stopped.
Agrees ... but just want it noted that the UN did feck all after sept 11th which isnt to inspiring

*edit - actually not to sure on that .... tiwan(sp?)(or is it Korea .. i forget lol) isnt a war cus of the USAers and they helped end ww2 .... not to sure what wars theyve caused

Vietnam, and they attacked Iraq rather quickly. And no, you can't go around shooting the people :| Their are laws against that, America's and the UN's. If I got the entire population of America and the entire population of Iraq in the same room, and they fought, Iraq would win. Its people are used to fighting and combat. They see the Gulf War as another Crusade and they will never stand down.

And if the military did attack the people, don't you think this may just push the rest of the worlds buttons? It may even cause a revolution!

1 good thing about Americans, when it comes down to it, the people obey the law better than the politicians.

EDIT: Most of the world helped end WWII, America had to be attacked to join. A better example would be WWI, thats where America was handy. When it was younger, and definitely loved.

Vietnam, and they attacked Iraq rather quickly. And no, you can't go around shooting the people :| Their are laws against that, America's and the UN's. If I got the entire population of America and the entire population of Iraq in the same room, and they fought, Iraq would win. Its people are used to fighting and combat. They see the Gulf War as another Crusade and they will never stand down.

And if the military did attack the people, don't you think this may just push the rest of the worlds buttons? It may even cause a revolution!

1 good thing about Americans, when it comes down to it, the people obey the law better than the politicians.

EDIT: Most of the world helped end WWII, America had to be attacked to join. A better example would be WWI, thats where America was handy. When it was younger, and definitely loved.

Lol i wasnt advocating america shooting everyone in Iraq just incase :D (Someone else assumed all Iraq was anti US like they assumed everyone hates the US)

Viva the revolution though as it sounds fun :D

ah so thats atleast 3 wars the US has helped to stop/end vs veitnam and iraq

gah im going need to spam some anti USA stuff soon or everyone will think ive gone soft lol

The War on Terror must go on because the Chinese Warmachine must be denied the resources it needs to become a global superpower.

The War on Terror must go on because the Chinese Warmachine must be denied the resources it needs to become a global superpower.

Finally! A person who agrees with me! China is extremely dangerous, probably the most dangerous long-term threat the US faces.

China is more of an economic threat than anything else.

The wealth in the world is limited. The bigger the slice of pie China has, the smaller our portion becomes.

american soldiers are more important than the Iraqi people right now.

They aren't. That's like saying the rapist that did it to an AIDS patient is more deserving of treatment for the condition he chose to acquire than the victim is deserving of psychological help to cope with her rape.

Where's the outcry? Where's the horror that almost 4,000 Americans have died in a foreign country that we invaded I'm almost as angry at the American people as I am the president. I think Americans have become apathetic and placid about the whole thing. We need to take action in order to be recognized Congress doesn't listen to us, there has to be something that can be done, I might sound naive, stupid whatever, but i'm convinced in someway we can do something.
It's just one of those things that's going on in the world, and it's not worth tiring yourself out needlessly over something we have no sway in. Time to get on with your life, squire.

coughs *ireland* .... took 27 years but hey atleast it was realistic to not think it would be done in a short time
Quite. See also Rhodesia, and, to an even greater extent, Malaysia.

american soldiers are more important than the Iraqi people right now.
No, they're not. One is getting paid to shoot and be shot at. The other group has gone from first world nation to subsaharan Africa, basically because Paul Wolfowitz said that the oil money would pay the US efforts back, which it completely hasn't.

Had they just been honest about it, I wouldn't have been so pissed off, but claiming it was due to a need for free'um and 'mocracy? That just winds me up.
The country at the moment can't be stablizied
Yes, yes it can, just not by a bunch of puppets who don't control Baghdad let alone anywhere else, directed by people in Washington who need This Young Democracy to survive for PR purposes, instead of just installing a malicious but effective dictator, which is by far the better solution.
it's a precarious situation and look at the treatment soldiers recieve when they get back, government barely helps them with medical bills.
This is what I have to say about that :

http://www.lincolnnet.net/users/lmtinprk/http/quality/images/violin.gif

People take 4 year tours of duty in the States, right?

So anyone in the US in the military right now is willing to go along with this war. Not like they couldn't find another job.
So are any of you going to do something?
I went on countless protests when I was stupid enough to presume that they might acheive something.

The War on Terror must go on because the Chinese Warmachine must be denied the resources it needs to become a global superpower.

Barring the fact that the evil Chinese hordes are not going to take over the world, how will the USA burning billions of dollars, losing troops and a great deal of international prestige stop China from gaining resources?

Oh, and how did you go from 'Chinese Warmachine' to 'China is more of an economic threat than anything else'?

No, they're not. One is getting paid to shoot and be shot at. The other group has gone from first world nation to subsaharan Africa, basically because Paul Wolfowitz said that the oil money would pay the US efforts back, which it completely hasn't.

Iraq under Saddam as a first world nation is a bit of a stretch, surely. Compared to the rest of the Middle East and to the state it is in now it wasn't bad, sure, but first world?

The problem is we have a large amount of conservatives Christians in office. Conservative Christians don't believe in pulling out.

Iraq under Saddam as a first world nation is a bit of a stretch, surely. Compared to the rest of the Middle East and to the state it is in now it wasn't bad, sure, but first world?
It was pretty much first world.

Its women's rights were pretty European in quality, its cities were cosmopolitan, the people were well-educated, ate well, many owned their own cars, the infrastructure was pretty fine and outside of the farming areas, people were pretty much living the same kind of lives they would have in Europe.

Yeah, fine, you couldn't speak up about Saddam. I'm sure you just got used to that.
The problem is we have a large amount of conservatives Christians in office. Conservative Christians don't believe in pulling out.
It's not the conservative christians that are the problem, it's those with a vested interest in the country with no interest in the Iraqi people, such as Cheney, that are the real issue.

I dont agree with Bush, but hes not a terrible president/person like everyone says. hes doing what he thinks is right and at least he hasnt lied. 4000 is really barely a handful. and if you join the military, well, duh. ever wonder why there are such great benefits? and as for ever going into the war to begin with, everyone was so angry they didnt stop to think. they just wanted revenge. They attacked us?? how dare they!


:headbang:

It was pretty much first world.

Its women's rights were pretty European in quality, its cities were cosmopolitan, the people were well-educated, ate well, many owned their own cars, the infrastructure was pretty fine and outside of the farming areas, people were pretty much living the same kind of lives they would have in Europe.

Yeah, fine, you couldn't speak up about Saddam. I'm sure you just got used to that.

All well and good, but a state with a $3600 GDP/capita (http://www.infoprod.co.il/article/28) is first world?

All well and good, but a state with a $3600 GDP/capita (http://www.infoprod.co.il/article/28) is first world?
So?

Doesn't mean that goods weren't priced at an associated level...

I dont agree with Bush, but hes not a terrible president/person like everyone says.
Yes he is. Arguably the worst president in the history of the US.
hes doing what he thinks is right
So? The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
and at least he hasnt lied.
How do we know?

Vietnam, and they attacked Iraq rather quickly. And no, you can't go around shooting the people :| Their are laws against that, America's and the UN's. If I got the entire population of America and the entire population of Iraq in the same room, and they fought, Iraq would win. Its people are used to fighting and combat. They see the Gulf War as another Crusade and they will never stand down.

And if the military did attack the people, don't you think this may just push the rest of the worlds buttons? It may even cause a revolution!

1 good thing about Americans, when it comes down to it, the people obey the law better than the politicians.

EDIT: Most of the world helped end WWII, America had to be attacked to join. A better example would be WWI, thats where America was handy. When it was younger, and definitely loved.

How would YOU know what the Iraq people think? From the media? From what your left-ist friends tell you? Have you actually been to iraq and asked the people?

I think one of the misconceptions about Iraq is that it is not making any progress at all, which isn't true. There are parts of the country with little to no fighting, and the popular attitudes in some areas are changing. Of course that isn't to say that other parts of the country don't have major problems, which are reported by the media every day, but progress is being made, gradually.

Another misconception seems to be that all Iraqis have the same opinion on everything that's happening there, which of course isn't the case, and in some ways is a large contributing factor to the problems. For instance, the majority of them are not terrorists or insurgents. It is a small minority of people there who are, although it does obviously seem to be a large enough minority to make things as bad as they are throughout much of the country. Many don't even believe Sunnis and Shi'ites should be fighting. And although many do want the Americans to leave and some even support the insurgents, even if they don't actively participate in the fighting themselves, some are changing their opinions on this and starting to believe that the current situation is the fault of and being worsened by the insurgents. These are just examples of opinions that some Iraqis have, but I don't think I should have to give them really. They are people, and there are a lot of them, so it should be obvious that there is a wide spectrum of ideas about any issue, including the fighting in Iraq. It just seems that for the most part the media presents to us a very narrow view of these ideas. However, I'm not sure how hypocritical I'm being, considering I learned of those examples of opinions from the media itself and am anything but an expert.

I believe that it really is possible that Bush is the worst president the US has ever had, although I don't know enough about the country's history to be sure about that. Although I do think he has always done what he believed to be right, I think that he has been incredibly wrong about what 'right' actually is, and can only put this down to sheer stupidity, arrogance and pig-headed stubbornness. He has almost single-handedly ruined the USA's reputation, as well as creating huge problems both domestically and abroad. Yes, I realise that Iraq and Afghanistan already had pretty bad situations, and that the US was not the only country to go to war in those places, but it could be argued that the situations there are even worse now than they were before.

I also really do wish the US didn't act like the police of the world (that's a bit of an overused expression, perhaps, but it fits). If only one good thing has come out of the Iraq war, I think it could be that the US has been humbled and is less arrogant about their position in the world now, as well as more careful about what they consider to be appropriate foreign policy. I don't mean to sound as if I think all Americans previously believed their country and fellow citizens to be superior to others, as of course there are always going to be a variety of opinions. I do think that there was / is an abnormally large portion of the population who did / still do believe that, and that it is presented somewhat in the media and the national culture.

I would much prefer it if the USA was not the only superpower in the world. Not that I want things to go back to a Cold War-like situation, but if there are going to be superpowers at all there needs to be a balance. I think that things would be better if either the US split into at least two smaller countries (although even that may not be enough), or if there was at least one another superpower representing different points of view on issues. That is not to say that I want another superpower that commits huge human rights violations or anything else bad like that, just one that will present alternate views to the USA's own. It would probably have to be non-Western, as two Western superpowers would probably be even worse than one in the eyes of a large chunk of the world's population. If any other country does become a superpower China seems the most likely, although this is not a turn of events I would look forward to. I wouldn't go so far as to calling it a warmachine (although I'm sure the Chinese government has caused many atrocities over the past fifty years or so, I would think that the US has started more actual wars), in fact in some cases it has been a useful ally, but I don't think that its government always has the best interests of its people and the people of other nations at heart.

alright this is a possiblity, we draft a letter detailing to our congress letters and threatening that if they don't take action, we will not vote for them the next election, and there'll be boycotts. Bush is largely at fault for this, but congress is too because they're not doing a goddamn job, so let's begin to outline a draft, Post it on here and we'll agree on a copy. Then, we'll send it to everyone EVERYONE! We know, we have to be uncompromising because in extreme moments, you need to to take actions. So let's start planning a draft

awsome ideas there that i bet the UK USA hasnt thought of to help rebuild it

Of course not. Their government has a vested interest in maintaining an Iraqi state, no matter how unstable or repressive it is.

Its taken time but barr a training camp UK have no soldiers there they just about have a goverment .. sectarian vilonce is virtually gone ... it will still be a long time before there is full unity but im pretty sure things are getting prosperous over there now
Agrees on the Kurd bit .... but how did the Kurd bit get made and how did it remain safe with sadam still around??

But if we don't have a Saddam Hussein in the first place, there won't be any need for intervention to prevent a Saddam Hussein from attacking.

That would be great if a strongman would suddenly appear ... unfortunatly the two strongest Iraqis at the mo are telling there people to kill each other so they become the one strong man .... you expect one of them to just yeah okay i give up you be the one as soon (or soon after) we suddenly pull out?? .. having a laugh as soon as date is given they will step up killing each other more so that they are the one when the troops are gone if possible)(and step up attacks to get a USA/UK kill trophy as a prize for there part)
Its down to the masses of people not the one strong man for peace to regien

I'm not denying that it is up to the general populace to work for peace, and not for a strong man. Those who desire power will continue to work for it; however, if we take away their greatest asset, the people's fear of being dominated, the masses will feel no need to help them in their power quest. They will see that there is far more benefit in cooperating with one another, and that the other groups have little to no chance of ever causing them widespread harm without an apparatus of coercion a la Mr. Hussein.

Just wondering who do you think most of the money from the drugs go to?? and any suggestions for where that money was spent?? (hint .. maybe a couple of plane training camps etc for starters)
but agrees on a bit of what you said ..win the opium farmers round some how and everything (well most) would be sorted

The money goes to terrorists because the terrorists are engaged in black marketeering; the black markets exist because of bans on narcotics from the US and much of the rest of the West. If you take away the black markets, the opium farmers wouldn't need to move through the terrorists but could just work with some investors from the West who will not go out and kill their own people.

alright this is a possiblity, we draft a letter detailing to our congress letters and threatening that if they don't take action, we will not vote for them the next election, and there'll be boycotts. Bush is largely at fault for this, but congress is too because they're not doing a goddamn job, so let's begin to outline a draft, Post it on here and we'll agree on a copy. Then, we'll send it to everyone EVERYONE! We know, we have to be uncompromising because in extreme moments, you need to to take actions. So let's start planning a draft

Where's the outcry?

Safely under the thumb of American Distraction.

"When in deadly danger
when in dire doubt
run around in circles
wave your arms and shout."

I remember hearing something to this effect somewhere...it might answer your question.

America must act as a so-named "police of the world" because it is a superpower. Simple.

Now, going to war is another story. It must, however, have its hand in global politics instead of acting dormant. Cheerful it ain't, but since it has such power in an international scale, it must have a word in global politics.

Of course not. Their government has a vested interest in maintaining an Iraqi state, no matter how unstable or repressive it is.
Agrees ... theyve messed up so bad over there that if they dont fix it the UK/USA will only be remembered for the mess (its already what Blair and Bush will be remembered for



But if we don't have a Saddam Hussein in the first place, there won't be any need for intervention to prevent a Saddam Hussein from attacking.
Im sorry i dont get what you mean by that .... the UN/USA/UK etc were protecting the no fly zone in the Kurd areas and Sadam was still trying to retake it before the war (or thats what news reports over here showed) .. and currently Iran are poking around the Kurd area and Turkey are now talking about making attacks in there (was on the news tonight) so prevention and troops remaining there (like in Iraq and Afgan) are protecting the majority of the populations



I'm not denying that it is up to the general populace to work for peace, and not for a strong man. Those who desire power will continue to work for it; however, if we take away their greatest asset, the people's fear of being dominated, the masses will feel no need to help them in their power quest. They will see that there is far more benefit in cooperating with one another, and that the other groups have little to no chance of ever causing them widespread harm without an apparatus of coercion a la Mr. Hussein.
Cool glad your not denying it .... you just seem to forget that its the minority extremists that will be left incharge to fight it out and then rule (after killing all of the opposition) .... and you really think your going to take away the average Iraqis fear of being dominated by the insurgents or whatever by cutting them free and pulling the troops out?? That arguement makes no logical sense ... and considering both sides of the Insurgants are anti USA UK you would think they would be co-operating now and just fighting us ... but nope they are fighting each other and then where they dominate the local area they are fighting our troops)
and considering Mr Hussein was from the minority group and tortured and abused mostly the majority group i dont get the logic in your last bit ... espacially as both sides are fighting each other



The money goes to terrorists because the terrorists are engaged in black marketeering; the black markets exist because of bans on narcotics from the US and much of the rest of the West. If you take away the black markets, the opium farmers wouldn't need to move through the terrorists but could just work with some investors from the West who will not go out and kill their own people.
Black marketing .. you put it to polite ... they are selling the heroin to the western countries ... why call it black marketing?? its not .. about the only other stuff they could be selling is weapons .. its certainly not alcohol
So your now saying pull troops out and makes all drugs legal .... atleast before i didnt think your arguements were stupid but now you want the troops home so they dont die there and more drugs over here to kill the younger people
The other way your thing reads is that you dont want people doing drugs over here so that the money doesnt go to the 'Black Market lol' people ... it sounds to me like your on the same side as Bush and all other governments in the whole world who are trying to stop the trade of drugs

*edit .... and add to the above ... what do you think the drug money will be used for as soon as the troops are gone?? If they have half a brain they will use it to win the people round to there views rebuilding schools etc ..... and then yay they can sink it all back into attacking the USA/UK on home soil (and this time they will be targeting you! not the troops who know the risk) ... and i bet my rear that they flood the markets even more to get more money quicker


Seriously i thought what you were saying yesterday was a bit short sighted (like ripping a band aid of someone else to cover a great big cut on your self and letting them bleeed to death) .... but those reply make no sense what so ever

alright this is a possiblity, we draft a letter detailing to our congress letters and threatening that if they don't take action, we will not vote for them the next election, and there'll be boycotts. Bush is largely at fault for this, but congress is too because they're not doing a goddamn job, so let's begin to outline a draft, Post it on here and we'll agree on a copy. Then, we'll send it to everyone EVERYONE! We know, we have to be uncompromising because in extreme moments, you need to to take actions. So let's start planning a draft


and lol youve said the same thing (looks like copy and paste) 3 times in this thread ..... how about getting of your arse and doing something usefull like protesting and writing letters etc at the USA/UK's utter uselessness at rebuilding the country ... thats doing something positive ... just calling troops back ... how the heck is that positive (unless you regard human USA lives more than human Iraqis lives ... In which case get notted as your a racist)

I think that the last reason given for staying in Iraq- to allow for some modicum of stability- is not a valid reason. Iraq is a geopolitical abortion where various groups were forced to live together under a single apparatus of compulsion by imperialist powers. It cannot be a stable country because it lends itself to domination by a certain group over all others. The only way it can be peaceful is if the political union is dissolved, and this would necessarily entail a withdrawal of soldiers upholding the current order. I am certain that the more people realize this, the more they would stop thinking of the war as some sort of stopgap and the more they would vehemently they would oppose it.

Concurred.

Agrees ... theyve messed up so bad over there that if they dont fix it the UK/USA will only be remembered for the mess (its already what Blair and Bush will be remembered for

Im sorry i dont get what you mean by that .... the UN/USA/UK etc were protecting the no fly zone in the Kurd areas and Sadam was still trying to retake it before the war (or thats what news reports over here showed) .. and currently Iran are poking around the Kurd area and Turkey are now talking about making attacks in there (was on the news tonight) so prevention and troops remaining there (like in Iraq and Afgan) are protecting the majority of the populations

But if there was no strongman in the first place, there would be no need to put so much money into patrolling and occupying. And a better defense for the Iraqi people would be to knock down the apparatus of coercion that they have and let them govern themselves in as many separate political units as possible. Areas without a centralized state (Medieval Ireland, Somalia, etc.) are infamous in how difficult they are to subjugate, and whatever invader might come would have no way to legitimize themselves because it would be obvious that they would be imposing their rule on others. Making Iraq seem like even more of a danger to their occupying forces than it ever was for us is far more likely to make them reconsider any aggression.

Cool glad your not denying it .... you just seem to forget that its the minority extremists that will be left incharge to fight it out and then rule (after killing all of the opposition) .... and you really think your going to take away the average Iraqis fear of being dominated by the insurgents or whatever by cutting them free and pulling the troops out?? That arguement makes no logical sense ... and considering both sides of the Insurgants are anti USA UK you would think they would be co-operating now and just fighting us ... but nope they are fighting each other and then where they dominate the local area they are fighting our troops)
and considering Mr Hussein was from the minority group and tortured and abused mostly the majority group i dont get the logic in your last bit ... espacially as both sides are fighting each other

But the difference is that before the troops leave, the Iraqi state will be dissolved and the people will govern their own local autonomous enclaves. There will be no Iraqi government positions to fight over in order to protect oneself/dominate others; instead, it will be a patchwork of regions or communities or as far down as we can go. Sure, they will still have the capability of walking on over and hurting each other, but anyone anywhere could do that. Al-sadr and his cronies cannot be elected, but would have to forceably subdue everyone else in order to reconstitute an Iraqi state. The former is far easier than the latter, and many more people could be rallied to resist him if he has no legitimate means to impose his rule onto others.

Without the very real threat of electoral domination, the people would have much less reason to fear one another due to the extreme difficulty of following through on the threat of naked physical force against everyone. They'd still hate each other, sure, but they'd have far less reason to do so without a legitimized apparatus of coercion.

Black marketing .. you put it to polite ... they are selling the heroin to the western countries ... why call it black marketing?? its not .. about the only other stuff they could be selling is weapons .. its certainly not alcohol
So your now saying pull troops out and makes all drugs legal .... atleast before i didnt think your arguements were stupid but now you want the troops home so they dont die there and more drugs over here to kill the younger people

If someone dies here because of legalized drugs, it is because they chose to consume them. There is a difference between this consenting to harming oneself and a soldier dying from a roadside bomb. Not to mention that it would be far less likely that legalized users would die; in Prohibition, alcohol was highly impure, users were threatened with legal sanction if they went for help, and black marketeers routinely used force in fighting one another in order to maintain their criminal empires. We can expect less tainted drugs, more possibilities for rehabilitation and aid, and the disappearance of violence (after all, I don't see Budweiser shooting up Miller) if we legalize drugs. So we would be saving lives on both accounts, in fact.

The other way your thing reads is that you dont want people doing drugs over here so that the money doesnt go to the 'Black Market lol' people ... it sounds to me like your on the same side as Bush and all other governments in the whole world who are trying to stop the trade of drugs

I just don't want laws telling people what they can and cannot do to themselves, or want the revenues from supplying these illegal desires to go into the hands of those who have no qualms about terrorizing the populace.

*edit .... and add to the above ... what do you think the drug money will be used for as soon as the troops are gone?? If they have half a brain they will use it to win the people round to there views rebuilding schools etc ..... and then yay they can sink it all back into attacking the USA/UK on home soil (and this time they will be targeting you! not the troops who know the risk) ... and i bet my rear that they flood the markets even more to get more money quicker

That's why we have to not only stop harassing them there but also legalize drugs here so that we can have peaceful commerce between legitimate businesses, not using terrorist groups as an underground transporter. Afghan opium farmers will be far more opposed to supporting anything that attacks the US if they know that it will threaten their interests of maintaining cordial business ties with the United States.

Seriously i thought what you were saying yesterday was a bit short sighted (like ripping a band aid of someone else to cover a great big cut on your self and letting them bleeed to death) .... but those reply make no sense what so ever

Well, you're entitled to your opinion.

I think that the American democrats are being foolish. I particularly remember John Kerry (the 2004 democratic canidate for presidant) saying the war in Iraq is going like the war in Vietnam. Why is that funny? Because the Americans lost that war as they were winning it! The North Vietnamese industry and troop levels were down, meaning they were about to lose. But the US troops were pulled out because the media had wrongly put American troop deaths to much higher levels. So Senator Kerry is almost saying that his political party is making the same mistake that the US government made years ago!:rolleyes:

teenagers are revolting because they have their XBOX,

No, teenagers are revolting. Period. They don't need an Xbox for that.

i was making the point of materialism. Forget this thread was purposeless, i'll shut it down.

I think that the American democrats are being foolish. I particularly remember John Kerry (the 2004 democratic canidate for presidant) saying the war in Iraq is going like the war in Vietnam. Why is that funny? Because the Americans lost that war as they were winning it! The North Vietnamese industry and troop levels were down, meaning they were about to lose. But the US troops were pulled out because the media had wrongly put American troop deaths to much higher levels. So Senator Kerry is almost saying that his political party is making the same mistake that the US government made years ago!:rolleyes:
I see, you're an expert, right? So what kind of experience do you think Kerry had with 'Nam? Are you brushed up on Flush and Weiner?

"When in deadly danger
when in dire doubt
run around in circles
wave your arms and shout."

I remember hearing something to this effect somewhere...it might answer your question.

You misquoted it:
"When in deadly danger,
When beset by doubt,
Run in litle circles,
Wave your arms and shout."

Thats a parody on the catechism of command, Commisariats manual, warhammer 40k ;)

I see, you're an expert, right? So what kind of experience do you think Kerry had with 'Nam? Are you brushed up on Flush and Weiner?

I don't believe that I said Kerry had any experience with the Vietnamese War. It is his comment that I said had anything to do with the Iraq war and vietnamese war.

Could you please explain to me what Flush and Weiner are? (Does it have anything to do with your sarcasm?)

If I have annoyed you, please explain why.

I think that the American democrats are being foolish. I particularly remember John Kerry (the 2004 democratic canidate for presidant) saying the war in Iraq is going like the war in Vietnam. Why is that funny? Because the Americans lost that war as they were winning it! The North Vietnamese industry and troop levels were down, meaning they were about to lose. But the US troops were pulled out because the media had wrongly put American troop deaths to much higher levels. So Senator Kerry is almost saying that his political party is making the same mistake that the US government made years ago!:rolleyes:

yeah what are we? weenies? we need to stay in iraq until we have killed more than a million iraqis and lost more than 58,000 troops of our own. THEN we can be proud of the job we have done!

yeah what are we? weenies? we need to stay in iraq until we have killed more than a million iraqis and lost more than 58,000 troops of our own. THEN we can be proud of the job we have done!

Ah, but what would happen if we pulled out too soon? The terrorists would have time to prepare for whatever they decide to do (to us or the world). However, the Iraqis have been ruled by a long line of dictators and kings and they have no clue of how to rule themselves, and no doubt their pitiful democracy would collapse in ruin as soon as we left. Perhaps the way terrorists have with bombs might cause many deaths of many leaders in Iraq....

So if we stay, we run the risk of this conflict turning into a bloodbath, but if we leave, order and democracy will collapse in Iraq. Which do you prefer?

If I have insulted or annoyed anyone, please tell me. The sarcasm is getting really enjoyable, though. I love sarcasm!:)

Ah, but what would happen if we pulled out too soon? The terrorists would have time to prepare for whatever they decide to do (to us or the world). However, the Iraqis have been ruled by a long line of dictators and kings and they have no clue of how to rule themselves, and no doubt their pitiful democracy would collapse in ruin as soon as we left. Perhaps the way terrorists have with bombs might cause many deaths of many leaders in Iraq....

So if we stay, we run the risk of this conflict turning into a bloodbath, but if we leave, order and democracy will collapse in Iraq. Which do you prefer?

If I have insulted or annoyed anyone, please tell me. The sarcasm is getting really enjoyable, though. I love sarcasm!:)

you have insulted no one. you are just getting a ration of shit for thinking that "the terrorists" are tied up in iraq and wont be attacking the US.

the organization that attacked us on 9/11 wasnt in iraq and isnt in iraq now. oh i suppose they have a bit of a local branch in iraq but that has ZERO to do with any plans they might have for the US in the future.

you cant use an army to force a country to be democratic. you cant bomb them into cooperating. they have to decide to do that on their own. they have to decide on their own just what kind of government they want. if its not a freely elected democracy, thats their business not ours.

You misquoted it:
"When in deadly danger,
When beset by doubt,
Run in little circles,
Wave your arms and shout."

Thats a parody on the catechism of command, Commisariats manual, warhammer 40k ;)

Thanks for the correction, I was just pulling that from memory.

you have insulted no one. you are just getting a ration of shit for thinking that "the terrorists" are tied up in iraq and wont be attacking the US.

the organization that attacked us on 9/11 wasnt in iraq and isnt in iraq now. oh i suppose they have a bit of a local branch in iraq but that has ZERO to do with any plans they might have for the US in the future.

you cant use an army to force a country to be democratic. you cant bomb them into cooperating. they have to decide to do that on their own. they have to decide on their own just what kind of government they want. if its not a freely elected democracy, thats their business not ours.

But we're not using armies and bombs on the Iraqis. We're using them on the enemy terrorists. And yes, it was stupid of me to say that the terrorists won't attack us simply because we are in Iraq and Afganistan. But, they will be free to go right back into those countries as we leave. I think I was talking about the terrorists that are in the middle east when I said that we are preventing them from attacking us, as a country. Nothing prevents them from attacking our troops in Iraq.

Of course, the biggest obstacle for the capture of Osama Bin Laden is the very anti-america arab countries around Iraq: Pakistan and Iran mostly. Osama is likely in Pakistan.

But as soon as we leave, Iraq won't be in any position to adopt an effective government. So, do we let it slide into chaos, and perhaps another dictatorship? Or do we leave it alone, and hope that it doesn't slide into chaos?

These arguements are very enjoyable.

Where's the outcry? Where's the horror that almost 4,000 Americans have died in a foreign country that we invaded I'm almost as angry at the American people as I am the president. I think Americans have become apathetic and placid about the whole thing. We need to take action in order to be recognized Congress doesn't listen to us, there has to be something that can be done, I might sound naive, stupid whatever, but i'm convinced in someway we can do something.
Considering how long we've been there, 4,000 KIA is NOTHING.

No disrespect to them, but the guys in Iraq today have it easy compared to those in prior wars. And besides, I'm sure most of them died thinking they helped the cause, you know, getting rid of those pesky insurgents.

this is not war, its occupation. we won the war and met our goal in iraq years ago.
Guerilla warfare is still warfare.

Send all the troops you want, the Gulf War shall not be won. Why? Because America is fighting the people of Iraq, as it did in Vietnam. And as history has proven to us, time and time again, you cannot win a war against the people. Not in this day and age.
News flash: we won in Vietnam. We were fighting against the North Vietnamese government, it's army, and the state-sponsored insurgents known as the Vietcong. Not quite a ragtag underground army of religious extremists.

In January 1968, there were about 84,000 Vietcong operatives in the southern region of the RVN. By April, after the first phase of the Tet Offensive, 45,000 of them were dead. The majority of their widespread attacks on US and RVN installations were repulsed entirely within days. Only in Hue, Khe Sahn and a select few other places did they hold out.

Iraq and Vietnam are not a fair/equal comparison. We had quite a bit more justification for going there, had more support from the country we were aiding and the people at home (at times, at least). Iraq is surprisingly different.

Iraq and Vietnam are not a fair/equal comparison. We had quite a bit more justification for going there, had more support from the country we were aiding and the people at home (at times, at least). Iraq is surprisingly different.

emmm......imposing a dictatorship on a people is not "quite a bit more justification" for an occupation. The large majority of Vietnamese wanted the US out, and were prepared to keep at it until it was. And spare me the "we won" crap, there was sweet fuck all about "winning" when they were jumping on US choppers in 1975.....

I don't believe that I said Kerry had any experience with the Vietnamese War. It is his comment that I said had anything to do with the Iraq war and vietnamese war.That's just it - Kerry did have quite a notable experience in 'Nam, for which he even testified about. If he thinks there's a parallel, it's conceivable that his own experience could tell him quite a bit about the similarities.


Could you please explain to me what Flush and Weiner are? (Does it have anything to do with your sarcasm?)Yes, it does. Flush Limblob and Michael "Savage" Weiner are cowardly bloviators who seem to think (or at least portray a semblence that) they know everything about military decisions and "victory" and what values are important.

spare me the "we won" crap, there was sweet fuck all about "winning" when they were jumping on US choppers in 1975.....

...right off the roof of the embassy, what a "mission accomplished" :(

Where's the outcry? Where's the horror that almost 4,000 Americans have died in a foreign country that we invaded I'm almost as angry at the American people as I am the president. I think Americans have become apathetic and placid about the whole thing. We need to take action in order to be recognized Congress doesn't listen to us, there has to be something that can be done, I might sound naive, stupid whatever, but i'm convinced in someway we can do something.

The idea that these people are dying for some kind of just or righteous cause is firmly set in a portion of both the American and Iraqi psyche, so much so that both sides will throw their own families (and, I'm sure, themselves) at each other until there is nothing left of either side but the people who didn't originally want to fight anyway.

..Maybe this is why society progresses. All the stubborn people willing to die for pointless ideology actually do, leaving only those who turn away from war and embrace change and understanding. It's like.. unnatural selection.