In the short term, anybody in Iraq who brandishes a weapon other than the U.S. military or Iraqi security forces. In the long term, we are trying to defeat political systems that oppress their people, leaving them desparate and vulnerable to militant ideologies. Happy people don't join cults or kill themselves. Those are the actions of desparate people, which the Middle East is in no short supply of these days due to the greedy, corrupt ruling class in many nations in the region.
...
Defeat political systems that oppress their people...
Isn't that task completed? I mean... Saddam is gone and a Democratically elected government is in his place, right? Is Iraq going to be the model for the new Saudi Arabia? Where are you trying to take us?
The whole Iraq 'Experiment' blew up in our faces. Many of their 'Security Forces' are either inept and do not show up for duty because it's too dangerous or are part of the Death Squads that run the place. The Bush/Rumsfeld groups claims over 300,000 trainned and equipped Iraqi 'Security Forces'... how many do they need over there?
The only way we'll get the outcome you want is to kill everybody in the region and move everyone currently living in Nebraska, Kansas and Iowa over there. That will ensure the Middle East that Bush envisions and that his believers see as well.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
Defeat political systems that oppress their people...
Isn't that task completed? I mean... Saddam is gone and a Democratically elected government is in his place, right? Is Iraq going to be the model for the new Saudi Arabia? Where are you trying to take us?
The whole Iraq 'Experiment' blew up in our faces. Many of their 'Security Forces' are either inept and do not show up for duty because it's too dangerous or are part of the Death Squads that run the place. The Bush/Rumsfeld groups claims over 300,000 trainned and equipped Iraqi 'Security Forces'... how many do they need over there?
The only way we'll get the outcome you want is to kill everybody in the region and move everyone currently living in Nebraska, Kansas and Iowa over there. That will ensure the Middle East that Bush envisions and that his believers see as well.
Yes, in part because we removed Saddam's regime. No, in the part that the new, democraticly electedgovernment is not strong enough to stand on its own without US forces protecting it.
You might want to quit listening to what Bush and Cheney claim about the venture in Iraq, I did a long time ago.
I am sure you would also want to include our dear Saudi Arabian and Pakistani friends in the corrupt ruling class as well right? Suuuuuuure....considering we have dumped BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS of dollars to support these governments militarily and economically in the last 10 years.
The US governemnt doesnt give a flyin fuck about the plight of Iraqi civlians or anyone else in the middle east. We only care about their oil. Once you come to terms with this fact, you will see things more clearly.
Fact??? That's quite an asertion. I love it when people think their "opinion" is fact. The truth lies somewhere in the middle... seems a place you can't seem to find. Of course we are their for the oil, nobody will dispute that. But that doesn't mean that are not there to promote political change in the region, leading to a more stable, tolerant world.
Fact??? That's quite an asertion. I love it when people think their "opinion" is fact. The truth lies somewhere in the middle... seems a place you can't seem to find. Of course we are their for the oil, nobody will dispute that. But that doesn't mean that are not there to promote political change in the region, leading to a more stable, tolerant world.
Well, there's money involved in this, too. There's a middle there you seem to be overlooking.
That is all true. We are keeping the killing steady for more than 4 years.
We have picked one side, and that side can not possibly win.
Yet we refuse to talk to any of the other groups - or even to Americans.
How many years can this last?
I am against the troop withdrawal.. I think that would be ignorant. We have to stay - and provide security. We have work will all sides on an acceptable solution - then we need to enforce it.. part of the negotiation will include help with enforcement
These poll results, and many of those like it have remained virtually unchanged in the past four years.
– A large majority of Iraqis–71%–say they would like the Iraqi government to ask for US-led forces to be withdrawn from Iraq within a year or less. Given four options, 37 percent take the position that they would like US-led forces withdrawn “within six months,” while another 34 percent opt for “gradually withdraw[ing] US-led forces according to a one-year timeline.”
– Support for attacks against US-led forces has increased sharply to 61 percent (27% strongly, 34% somewhat). This represents a 14-point increase from January 2006, when only 47 percent of Iraqis supported attacks.
– More broadly, 79 percent of Iraqis say that the US is having a negative influence on the situation in Iraq, with just 14 percent saying that it is having a positive influence.
– Asked “If the US made a commitment to withdraw from Iraq according to a timeline, do you think this would strengthen the Iraqi government, weaken it, or have no effect either way?” 53 percent said that it would strengthen the government, while just 24 percent said it would weaken the government.
– Asked what effect it would have “if US-led forces withdraw from Iraq in the next six months,” 58 percent overall say that violence would decrease (35% a lot, 23% a little).
"I'm not ungrateful that they took away Saddam Hussein," says Salam Ahmed, 30, a Shiite businessman. "But the job is done. Thank you very much. See you later. Bye-bye."
In the long term, we are trying to defeat political systems that oppress their people, leaving them desparate and vulnerable to militant ideologies. Happy people don't join cults or kill themselves. Those are the actions of desparate people, which the Middle East is in no short supply of these days due to the greedy, corrupt ruling class in many nations in the region.
If that is the case then why didn't we start with Saudi Arabia. It is well known that Saudi Arabia is probably one of the largest hot beds for terrorist recruiting because of the oppression suffered there by the people at the hands of their rulers. What do we do, we turn a blind eye to that fact and continue to roll around in the sack with the Al Saud family. With one hand we offer these people democracy while in the other we keep handing out money to support dictators.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Anybody have any stats on how many American on American deaths there were in the States while Saddam was in power? To be compared to the stats of Iraqi on Iraqi deaths while said Saddam was running the show. Of course people will find no point in that as it won't conform to how bad Iraq is with them killing each other. But others will see the point and enjoy a smile at the truth behind it.
Well, there's money involved in this, too. There's a middle there you seem to be overlooking.
I'm assuming you mean the war profiteering of major US defense corporations. No doubt there is a lot of that going on. And no doubt there is some corrupt shit involved with them too. But no more than giant pharma companies lobbying the hell out of congress to screw the rest of the world, or credit card companies fleecing Americans by buying votes to support deplorable business practices, etc... Most giant companies are in bed with our government, it's not just Haliburton & Co. Basically, I agree that some policies may have been dictated to the financial benefit of some of these businesses - but I can't just can't beilieve that they lobbied Bush into starting this war for their bottom line.
If that is the case then why didn't we start with Saudi Arabia. It is well known that Saudi Arabia is probably one of the largest hot beds for terrorist recruiting because of the oppression suffered there by the people at the hands of their rulers. What do we do, we turn a blind eye to that fact and continue to roll around in the sack with the Al Saud family. With one hand we offer these people democracy while in the other we keep handing out money to support dictators.
Because that would be self defeating. First, I'd like to point out that nobody in the world would support this action becuase the spike in oil prices would likely send the world economy into a depression. Yes, it's not just the big bad USA that looks after their self interest. I know you enjoy calling us out, but this concept applies to every nation and almost every human being on Earth.
Second, there was a much better case against Saddam. He may not have supported radical Islamic factions to the extent of the Saudi's, but he was certainly the friend of those that wished harm to the west. His beligerent aggression in the region and dozens of UN violations laid out a good case for toppling him in a way that did not exist for the Saudi's.
Basically, there are different strategies for different countries. Some require soft influence, some require hard aggresion. But even people who disagree with US foreign policy in the Mid-east should at least see the value and logic of starting with Afghanistan and then moving to Iraq.
In fact, I bet if Bush had wanted to invade Saudi Arabia the whole world have said 'what about Iraq?"
Because that would be self defeating. First, I'd like to point out that nobody in the world would support this action becuase the spike in oil prices would likely send the world economy into a depression. Yes, it's not just the big bad USA that looks after their self interest. I know you enjoy calling us out, but this concept applies to every nation and almost every human being on Earth.
Second, there was a much better case against Saddam. He may not have supported radical Islamic factions to the extent of the Saudi's, but he was certainly the friend of those that wished harm to the west. His beligerent aggression in the region and dozens of UN violations laid out a good case for toppling him in a way that did not exist for the Saudi's.
Basically, there are different strategies for different countries. Some require soft influence, some require hard aggresion. But even people who disagree with US foreign policy in the Mid-east should at least see the value and logic of starting with Afghanistan and then moving to Iraq.
In fact, I bet if Bush had wanted to invade Saudi Arabia the whole world have said 'what about Iraq?"
I never mentioned an invasion. You can not force democracy on another country. That change has to come from within. I can't think of one country that transformed into a Democracy because of an external invading force.
If our government would have gone about spreading Demcracy by by pressuring Saudi Arabia to start walking down that path we probabably would have won the hearts of the oppressed masses in that country. Instead though we attack a country that posed no real threat to us. Who had no direct ties to the terrorist organization that posed a threat to us and we used democracy as a nice way to justify our actions. If you really want to see what a Democratic government in the Middle East will look like, look at the Palestinians and who they elected.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
I'm assuming you mean the war profiteering of major US defense corporations. No doubt there is a lot of that going on. And no doubt there is some corrupt shit involved with them too. But no more than giant pharma companies lobbying the hell out of congress to screw the rest of the world, or credit card companies fleecing Americans by buying votes to support deplorable business practices, etc... Most giant companies are in bed with our government, it's not just Haliburton & Co. Basically, I agree that some policies may have been dictated to the financial benefit of some of these businesses - but I can't just can't beilieve that they lobbied Bush into starting this war for their bottom line.
I was thinking more along the lines of the money coming out of our pockets. How much is enough?
But even people who disagree with US foreign policy in the Mid-east should at least see the value and logic of starting with Afghanistan and then moving to Iraq.
In fact, I bet if Bush had wanted to invade Saudi Arabia the whole world have said 'what about Iraq?"
I don't see the value and logic in that. Afghanistan was certainly justified, but the "value" of moving into Iraq completely escaped me even back when the war began - for pretty much all the reasons we now consider it to be a problem. We got exactly the outcome I expected - and at the time I couldn't believe that most of the U.S. thought that this was somehow going to turn out not only differently, but with such massive optimisim I was beginning to think there was something in our water supply.
And you would have never heard me say "what about Iraq?" I did entertain the idea that Saudi Arabia would be next, though. Further off in the future, but still "next." When we began the lead up to the Iraq invasion, my immediate response was "where the hell did this shit come from. Iraq? Now? We're still in Afghanistan. Too soon - wrong country."
I never mentioned an invasion. You can not force democracy on another country. That change has to come from within. I can't think of one country that transformed into a Democracy because of an external invading force.
If our government would have gone about spreading Demcracy by by pressuring Saudi Arabia to start walking down that path we probabably would have won the hearts of the oppressed masses in that country. Instead though we attack a country that posed no real threat to us. Who had no direct ties to the terrorist organization that posed a threat to us and we used democracy as a nice way to justify our actions. If you really want to see what a Democratic government in the Middle East will look like, look at the Palestinians and who they elected.
What about Japan, Germany or Italy? We invaded, overthrew their governments and installed by FORCE democratic goverments.
Yes, I realize who the Palestinians just elected and though I don't like them - it's still a move in the right direction. Look at some of the leaders America has elected? The most important thing is that the institution is in place so the people have self-determination. As societies liberalize, the candidates they elect will represent this evolution. It is a long, long process. Wouldn't you agree?
What about Japan, Germany or Italy? We invaded, overthrew their governments and installed by FORCE democratic goverments.
Yes, I realize who the Palestinians just elected and though I don't like them - it's still a move in the right direction. Look at some of the leaders America has elected? The most important thing is that the institution is in place so the people have self-determination. As societies liberalize, the candidates they elect will represent this evolution. It is a long, long process. Wouldn't you agree?
Hitler and Mussalini where elected officials. I'll give you Japan though.
Yes it is a long process but my problem with all of this is that while trying to solve the problem we also contribute to the problem. I hate to keep harping on Saudi Arabia but how can we say with a straight face, and expect to be taken seriously, that we want to support the rise of democracy in the Middle East when we support such an oppressive government. It is our support of that country that keeps the Al Sauds in power and the people know that.
Second I don't think it is America's responsibility to be the savior of the world. We have no right invading a country just because we want democracy to flourish there.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Yes, in part because we removed Saddam's regime. No, in the part that the new, democraticly electedgovernment is not strong enough to stand on its own without US forces protecting it.
You might want to quit listening to what Bush and Cheney claim about the venture in Iraq, I did a long time ago.
I disagree with your last point.
...
I understand what you are saying... i just think that it (a Democratically controlled Capitalist Society in iraq) is not a probable outcome. Sure, it is possible... winning the lottery is possible, but not highly probable.
here is why I feel this way...
Iraq is pre-dominantly Shi'ite... that is a fact and is not in dispute. look at Shi'ite track records... they gave us the Ayatollah Khomeni and Islamic Revolution in Iran as well as Khomeni's Number One Fan, Muqtada al Sadr... Hezbollah... IRAN. What do all of those people want? To destroy Israel. As long as we stand on Israel's side of the fence... in their minds... we are Israel.
It is more than likely that an 60%+ majority will rule in Democratic elections... especially when the voters cast their ballots in accordance of their religious leaders. Iraq is going to be Shi'ite... that is the greater probablility.
We are already seeing the revenge card being played out. If you were brutally oppressed for the past 30 years... saw your relatives dragged out in the night, only to re-appear as a headless crpse in a mass grave... what do you do when the gun is suddenlty in your hands not theirs? That is the reality we have to face in Iraq.
Sure... I WANT thing to work out. But, I also WANT to win the lottery. Survey the environment... assess the situation and act in the manner that leaves you with the least amount of damage. Hoping for the best is not the best military strategy out there... it never has been.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
I understand what you are saying... i just think that it (a Democratically controlled Capitalist Society in iraq) is not a probable outcome. Sure, it is possible... winning the lottery is possible, but not highly probable.
here is why I feel this way...
Iraq is pre-dominantly Shi'ite... that is a fact and is not in dispute. look at Shi'ite track records... they gave us the Ayatollah Khomeni and Islamic Revolution in Iran as well as Khomeni's Number One Fan, Muqtada al Sadr... Hezbollah... IRAN. What do all of those people want? To destroy Israel. As long as we stand on Israel's side of the fence... in their minds... we are Israel.
It is more than likely that an 60%+ majority will rule in Democratic elections... especially when the voters cast their ballots in accordance of their religious leaders. Iraq is going to be Shi'ite... that is the greater probablility.
We are already seeing the revenge card being played out. If you were brutally oppressed for the past 30 years... saw your relatives dragged out in the night, only to re-appear as a headless crpse in a mass grave... what do you do when the gun is suddenlty in your hands not theirs? That is the reality we have to face in Iraq.
Sure... I WANT thing to work out. But, I also WANT to win the lottery. Survey the environment... assess the situation and act in the manner that leaves you with the least amount of damage. Hoping for the best is not the best military strategy out there... it never has been.
Kudos to you. We don't agree but I respect your opinion and the reasoning behind it.
I do agree with you on the fact that this is likely not going to happen. I just feel that we are paying a small price in soldiers and that the risk is worth the potential reward. For the Iraqi's, they will probably get killed at a higher rate after we leave than they are now.
Kudos to you. We don't agree but I respect your opinion and the reasoning behind it.
I do agree with you on the fact that this is likely not going to happen. I just feel that we are paying a small price in soldiers and that the risk is worth the potential reward. For the Iraqi's, they will probably get killed at a higher rate after we leave than they are now.
...
My guess... Shi'ites will kill Sunnis and vice versa when we leave. If we left today or next year or 30 years from now. Our presense in their neighborhood is probably not going to stop a feud that has been going on for the past 1500 years. That feud is religion based... neither side is going to quit.
What we have to decide is what is OUR cost in all of this? How many 'acceptable losses' do we need before it crosses into 'unacceptable'?
i used to believe the 'It'll get worse if we leave' and now believe 'It'll get worse WHEN we leave'... be it 2007 or 2027 or 2700. I think we made a huge mistake and prolonging the mistake will not remedy it. Those fucking guys over there are going to kill each other whether we are there or not... Hell... I believe that even if Israel were to pack up and move to Baja California... those fuckers would STILL be killing each other.
For me... there are no more acceptable losses... in the lives of my military personel or the tax dollars my kids and grandkids are going to have to pay.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
My guess... Shi'ites will kill Sunnis and vice versa when we leave. If we leaft today or next year or 30 years from not. Our presense in their neighborhood is probably not going to stop a feud that has been going on for the past 1500 years. That feud is religion based... neither side is going to quit.
what we have to decide is what is OUR cost in all of this? How many 'acceptable looses' do we need before it crosses into 'unacceptable'?
i used to believe the 'It'll get worse if we leave' and now believe 'It'll get worse WHEN we leave'... be it 2007 or 2027 or 2700. I think we made a huge mistake and prolonging the mistake will not remedy it. Those fucking guys over there are going to kill each other whether we are there or not... Hell... I believe that even if Israel were to pack up and move to Baja California... those fuckers would STILL be killing each other.
For me... there are no more acceptable losses... in the lives of my military personel or the tax dollars my kids and grandkids are going to have to pay.
A-fuckin-men! Why does the west continue to believe that we can inact change in the middle east?
...
My guess... Shi'ites will kill Sunnis and vice versa when we leave. If we left today or next year or 30 years from now. Our presense in their neighborhood is probably not going to stop a feud that has been going on for the past 1500 years. That feud is religion based... neither side is going to quit.
What we have to decide is what is OUR cost in all of this? How many 'acceptable losses' do we need before it crosses into 'unacceptable'?
i used to believe the 'It'll get worse if we leave' and now believe 'It'll get worse WHEN we leave'... be it 2007 or 2027 or 2700. I think we made a huge mistake and prolonging the mistake will not remedy it. Those fucking guys over there are going to kill each other whether we are there or not... Hell... I believe that even if Israel were to pack up and move to Baja California... those fuckers would STILL be killing each other.
For me... there are no more acceptable losses... in the lives of my military personel or the tax dollars my kids and grandkids are going to have to pay.
Even though this is mainly a religious fued, I still think we can help these people change. We have to help establish and support the institutions that allow the kinds of things that foster change - ya know, free speech, political and religious discourse, etc....
If we leave, the Shities will probably go to work on the Sunnis. The Sunnis will fight back, and will be backed by groups like Al Quaida who will constantly terrorize the Shities. This will snuff out the possibility of the exchange of ideas and compromise - it will only lead to the exchange of bullets and militant attitudes towards one another that will get carried over to the next generation.
Look, many religions have reconciled with the times. The Roman Catholics did it with the help of a German monk, Martin Luther. Islam is going to have to do this as well. I think with the technology that exists today and the mobility of people, it is just too dangerous to sit around and let them fight it out agmost themselves.. becuase for the hard-liners, they will always hate the West. And they will continually try to undermine our society through acts of terrorism.
I wish we could just let them duke it out on their own. If we could move all of them to Africa or Siberia, then sure, we could let them go at it all they wanted. But they are fighting on top of the world's most presious and valuable natural resource.
Comments
Defeat political systems that oppress their people...
Isn't that task completed? I mean... Saddam is gone and a Democratically elected government is in his place, right? Is Iraq going to be the model for the new Saudi Arabia? Where are you trying to take us?
The whole Iraq 'Experiment' blew up in our faces. Many of their 'Security Forces' are either inept and do not show up for duty because it's too dangerous or are part of the Death Squads that run the place. The Bush/Rumsfeld groups claims over 300,000 trainned and equipped Iraqi 'Security Forces'... how many do they need over there?
The only way we'll get the outcome you want is to kill everybody in the region and move everyone currently living in Nebraska, Kansas and Iowa over there. That will ensure the Middle East that Bush envisions and that his believers see as well.
Hail, Hail!!!
Yes, in part because we removed Saddam's regime. No, in the part that the new, democraticly electedgovernment is not strong enough to stand on its own without US forces protecting it.
You might want to quit listening to what Bush and Cheney claim about the venture in Iraq, I did a long time ago.
I disagree with your last point.
Fact??? That's quite an asertion. I love it when people think their "opinion" is fact. The truth lies somewhere in the middle... seems a place you can't seem to find. Of course we are their for the oil, nobody will dispute that. But that doesn't mean that are not there to promote political change in the region, leading to a more stable, tolerant world.
Well, there's money involved in this, too. There's a middle there you seem to be overlooking.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
These poll results, and many of those like it have remained virtually unchanged in the past four years.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/27/iraqis-poll/
– A large majority of Iraqis–71%–say they would like the Iraqi government to ask for US-led forces to be withdrawn from Iraq within a year or less. Given four options, 37 percent take the position that they would like US-led forces withdrawn “within six months,” while another 34 percent opt for “gradually withdraw[ing] US-led forces according to a one-year timeline.”
– Support for attacks against US-led forces has increased sharply to 61 percent (27% strongly, 34% somewhat). This represents a 14-point increase from January 2006, when only 47 percent of Iraqis supported attacks.
– More broadly, 79 percent of Iraqis say that the US is having a negative influence on the situation in Iraq, with just 14 percent saying that it is having a positive influence.
– Asked “If the US made a commitment to withdraw from Iraq according to a timeline, do you think this would strengthen the Iraqi government, weaken it, or have no effect either way?” 53 percent said that it would strengthen the government, while just 24 percent said it would weaken the government.
– Asked what effect it would have “if US-led forces withdraw from Iraq in the next six months,” 58 percent overall say that violence would decrease (35% a lot, 23% a little).
"I'm not ungrateful that they took away Saddam Hussein," says Salam Ahmed, 30, a Shiite businessman. "But the job is done. Thank you very much. See you later. Bye-bye."
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
If that is the case then why didn't we start with Saudi Arabia. It is well known that Saudi Arabia is probably one of the largest hot beds for terrorist recruiting because of the oppression suffered there by the people at the hands of their rulers. What do we do, we turn a blind eye to that fact and continue to roll around in the sack with the Al Saud family. With one hand we offer these people democracy while in the other we keep handing out money to support dictators.
I'm assuming you mean the war profiteering of major US defense corporations. No doubt there is a lot of that going on. And no doubt there is some corrupt shit involved with them too. But no more than giant pharma companies lobbying the hell out of congress to screw the rest of the world, or credit card companies fleecing Americans by buying votes to support deplorable business practices, etc... Most giant companies are in bed with our government, it's not just Haliburton & Co. Basically, I agree that some policies may have been dictated to the financial benefit of some of these businesses - but I can't just can't beilieve that they lobbied Bush into starting this war for their bottom line.
Because that would be self defeating. First, I'd like to point out that nobody in the world would support this action becuase the spike in oil prices would likely send the world economy into a depression. Yes, it's not just the big bad USA that looks after their self interest. I know you enjoy calling us out, but this concept applies to every nation and almost every human being on Earth.
Second, there was a much better case against Saddam. He may not have supported radical Islamic factions to the extent of the Saudi's, but he was certainly the friend of those that wished harm to the west. His beligerent aggression in the region and dozens of UN violations laid out a good case for toppling him in a way that did not exist for the Saudi's.
Basically, there are different strategies for different countries. Some require soft influence, some require hard aggresion. But even people who disagree with US foreign policy in the Mid-east should at least see the value and logic of starting with Afghanistan and then moving to Iraq.
In fact, I bet if Bush had wanted to invade Saudi Arabia the whole world have said 'what about Iraq?"
I never mentioned an invasion. You can not force democracy on another country. That change has to come from within. I can't think of one country that transformed into a Democracy because of an external invading force.
If our government would have gone about spreading Demcracy by by pressuring Saudi Arabia to start walking down that path we probabably would have won the hearts of the oppressed masses in that country. Instead though we attack a country that posed no real threat to us. Who had no direct ties to the terrorist organization that posed a threat to us and we used democracy as a nice way to justify our actions. If you really want to see what a Democratic government in the Middle East will look like, look at the Palestinians and who they elected.
I was thinking more along the lines of the money coming out of our pockets. How much is enough?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
And you would have never heard me say "what about Iraq?" I did entertain the idea that Saudi Arabia would be next, though. Further off in the future, but still "next." When we began the lead up to the Iraq invasion, my immediate response was "where the hell did this shit come from. Iraq? Now? We're still in Afghanistan. Too soon - wrong country."
What about Japan, Germany or Italy? We invaded, overthrew their governments and installed by FORCE democratic goverments.
Yes, I realize who the Palestinians just elected and though I don't like them - it's still a move in the right direction. Look at some of the leaders America has elected? The most important thing is that the institution is in place so the people have self-determination. As societies liberalize, the candidates they elect will represent this evolution. It is a long, long process. Wouldn't you agree?
Hitler and Mussalini where elected officials. I'll give you Japan though.
Yes it is a long process but my problem with all of this is that while trying to solve the problem we also contribute to the problem. I hate to keep harping on Saudi Arabia but how can we say with a straight face, and expect to be taken seriously, that we want to support the rise of democracy in the Middle East when we support such an oppressive government. It is our support of that country that keeps the Al Sauds in power and the people know that.
Second I don't think it is America's responsibility to be the savior of the world. We have no right invading a country just because we want democracy to flourish there.
I understand what you are saying... i just think that it (a Democratically controlled Capitalist Society in iraq) is not a probable outcome. Sure, it is possible... winning the lottery is possible, but not highly probable.
here is why I feel this way...
Iraq is pre-dominantly Shi'ite... that is a fact and is not in dispute. look at Shi'ite track records... they gave us the Ayatollah Khomeni and Islamic Revolution in Iran as well as Khomeni's Number One Fan, Muqtada al Sadr... Hezbollah... IRAN. What do all of those people want? To destroy Israel. As long as we stand on Israel's side of the fence... in their minds... we are Israel.
It is more than likely that an 60%+ majority will rule in Democratic elections... especially when the voters cast their ballots in accordance of their religious leaders. Iraq is going to be Shi'ite... that is the greater probablility.
We are already seeing the revenge card being played out. If you were brutally oppressed for the past 30 years... saw your relatives dragged out in the night, only to re-appear as a headless crpse in a mass grave... what do you do when the gun is suddenlty in your hands not theirs? That is the reality we have to face in Iraq.
Sure... I WANT thing to work out. But, I also WANT to win the lottery. Survey the environment... assess the situation and act in the manner that leaves you with the least amount of damage. Hoping for the best is not the best military strategy out there... it never has been.
Hail, Hail!!!
Kudos to you. We don't agree but I respect your opinion and the reasoning behind it.
I do agree with you on the fact that this is likely not going to happen. I just feel that we are paying a small price in soldiers and that the risk is worth the potential reward. For the Iraqi's, they will probably get killed at a higher rate after we leave than they are now.
My guess... Shi'ites will kill Sunnis and vice versa when we leave. If we left today or next year or 30 years from now. Our presense in their neighborhood is probably not going to stop a feud that has been going on for the past 1500 years. That feud is religion based... neither side is going to quit.
What we have to decide is what is OUR cost in all of this? How many 'acceptable losses' do we need before it crosses into 'unacceptable'?
i used to believe the 'It'll get worse if we leave' and now believe 'It'll get worse WHEN we leave'... be it 2007 or 2027 or 2700. I think we made a huge mistake and prolonging the mistake will not remedy it. Those fucking guys over there are going to kill each other whether we are there or not... Hell... I believe that even if Israel were to pack up and move to Baja California... those fuckers would STILL be killing each other.
For me... there are no more acceptable losses... in the lives of my military personel or the tax dollars my kids and grandkids are going to have to pay.
Hail, Hail!!!
A-fuckin-men! Why does the west continue to believe that we can inact change in the middle east?
Baja Israel?????
Even though this is mainly a religious fued, I still think we can help these people change. We have to help establish and support the institutions that allow the kinds of things that foster change - ya know, free speech, political and religious discourse, etc....
If we leave, the Shities will probably go to work on the Sunnis. The Sunnis will fight back, and will be backed by groups like Al Quaida who will constantly terrorize the Shities. This will snuff out the possibility of the exchange of ideas and compromise - it will only lead to the exchange of bullets and militant attitudes towards one another that will get carried over to the next generation.
Look, many religions have reconciled with the times. The Roman Catholics did it with the help of a German monk, Martin Luther. Islam is going to have to do this as well. I think with the technology that exists today and the mobility of people, it is just too dangerous to sit around and let them fight it out agmost themselves.. becuase for the hard-liners, they will always hate the West. And they will continually try to undermine our society through acts of terrorism.
I wish we could just let them duke it out on their own. If we could move all of them to Africa or Siberia, then sure, we could let them go at it all they wanted. But they are fighting on top of the world's most presious and valuable natural resource.