Troop boost. If this doesn't work...

Remember...Bush is the decider. It will be almost impossible for him to admit he is/was wrong. It goes against his mission from God. How could he be wrong? How many more have to die for what? I still don't know what the end game is. He keeps saying, "until the job is done". What does that mean? Not only are we the policeman for the world...we are the moral enforcer also. I would not like us either if I were from somewhere else. :huh:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(huskers @ Dec 15 2006, 07:24 PM) [snapback]363020[/snapback]</div>

It is really quite simple, I don't know why there is so much trouble understanding the goal. Here is the brass tacks version; MOI (My Own Interpretation) install a democratic regime in Iraq. For crying out loud it took us (Founding Fathers) 5 years just to sign the Constitution.



Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Dec 16 2006, 06:09 AM) [snapback]363068[/snapback]</div>

But we were not running around blowing each other up. All these people have ever known or wanted was their tribal (6th century) form of government...let them have it. Come home. Oh, I forgot the main point...they have oil!!! I guess we have to stay.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Dec 16 2006, 07:09 AM) [snapback]363068[/snapback]</div>

Oxymoron of the day.

You probably mean: install a despot regime, and call it democratic. Unless the despot decides it is *his* oil, then invade and replace.

Rinse and repeat, so long as enough neo-cons are around to support the idiocy.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Dec 15 2006, 10:27 PM) [snapback]363008[/snapback]</div>

Or (from Peter Cook): Yes, I think I can say I've learned from my mistakes. And I can repeat them exactly.

 

The polling in Iraq shows that, overall, a majority of Iraqis support continued coalition presence in their country for at least another year, and that most of Iraqis also want a functioning, democratic government.

Oh wait, I'm sorry. No one has mentioned what the Iraqis want. I apologize for bringing it up.

What is it that we want again? After all, this is all about us, isn't it?

(Some polling data is at http://www.iraqanalysis.org/info/55)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(huskers @ Dec 16 2006, 06:55 AM) [snapback]363087[/snapback]</div>

Well yes we were running around trying to blow each other up. Your point is well taken about their tribal form of government but there have been many other forms of government that have been anti-democratic and have successfully converted to a democratic form of government. One thing I would like to point out is that their are forms of Tribal Democracy such as http://law.cua.edu/ComparativeLaw/Iroquois/ that have been referred to as one of the most influential legal systems in the world. Your main point is one that has come up often and the accusation has failed on each account.



Wildkow





<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Dec 16 2006, 07:22 AM) [snapback]363091[/snapback]</div>

So its idiocy to support democratic forms of government? The last election in Iraq shows how out of touch with reality you are.



Wildkow



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Dec 16 2006, 11:36 AM) [snapback]363171[/snapback]</div>

Sigh, the delay is not about or caused by the slowness of document distribution its about the content of the documents.



Wildkow

 

Does the Bush administration really want a democratic government in Iraq? Or does it want a government strong enough to hold fraudulent elections that will assure a strong pro-American leader?

Before Collin Powell was fired (perhaps for being just a bit too honest) he stated in an interview (which I heard on the radio, so I don't have a link to a printed version) that the U.S. would remain in Iraq until Iraq had a democratically-elected government friendly to the U.S.

[Empasis mine.]

Since the Iraqis are unlikely to ever elect a government friendly to the U.S., Powell was essentially telling us the U.S. would stay there forever. Or at least until we have a president who is not a moron.

The real question is: Is the U.S. willing to accept a democratically-elected government that is hostile to the U.S.? It never has before, so it seems unlikely it would accept such a government now, in a country with so much oil.

Now if we just developed renewable energy and implemented conservation, then we wouldn't need their oil and we wouldn't have to send Americans to die to obtain it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Dec 16 2006, 03:09 AM) [snapback]363068[/snapback]</div>

The British installed "democracy" in the early 1900s. It was much like the kind we are trying to give them: an "elected" leader whom we control. They don't think much of democracy as a system.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Dec 17 2006, 07:06 PM) [snapback]363582[/snapback]</div>

Did the Saudi and Pak Government violate 17 different UN propositions? Did they shoot missles at our servicemen on a daily basis? Kind of crucial question before asking your question. Were or did they commit genocide against their own people? Hey I know, I bet you could look it up on Google!

[attachmentid=5937]



Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alnilam @ Dec 18 2006, 12:01 AM) [snapback]363608[/snapback]</div>

A question for all of you, what are the consequences if we withdraw and are you willing to suffer them? Answers please without the emotion and drivel.

I ask this only because the Dems who are now in power have yet to voice support for this option - surprising given all their blabber before the elections. Do they see something you do not - at least now that their words are actionable and will have consequences?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Dec 18 2006, 04:18 AM) [snapback]363659[/snapback]</div>

But this is only half the question. The other half is, "What are the consequences if we remain, and are you willing to suffer them

Of course, both are speculative, so all I can do is give my opinion:

If we remain, the civil war continues indefinitely, and al Qaeda has the ideal recruiting tool. Thus it grows ever larger, and its philosophy of hatred for the West spreads out over an ever-wider circle, until the only countries in the world that do not hate us are Israel (because of the billions of dollars we give them every year) and Mexico (because they can come here and make a few bucks doing hard manual labor.)

If we simply pull the troops out cold, as virtually nobody is actually calling for, then the Iraqis have to settle matters themselves, but al Qaeda is deprived of it's raison d'etre. Iraq becomes an "Islamic Republic," like Iran, but opposed to Iran because of internal squabbling within Islam.

Note Mr. Berman's regular tactic: Asserting that his opponents have taken positions they never have, and then making silly, unconvincing arguments against even those alleged positions.

Of course, we could take a more sensible course, and turn the efforts to stabilize and rebuild Iraq over to an international body that is not universally hated by the Iraqi people. This would do a great deal to calm the tensions. And genuine elections (not rigged by the U.S. in the form of massive campaign support for a U.S. puppet) could bring democracy to the country. But since this democratic government would certainly not be friendly to the U.S., nobody in either political party will accept it. Certainly not Mr. Berman.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Dec 18 2006, 10:09 AM) [snapback]363720[/snapback]</div>

i would support choosing a side - shia - and then dealing with it. we cannot play ref and should never have.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Dec 18 2006, 11:17 AM) [snapback]363864[/snapback]</div>

Do you really think all actions have only one reason?

Perhaps that's why we get the drumbeat of "there were no WMD". I guess if I thought there was only one reason to support regime change in Iraq, and we found out all the intelligence on it was in error, then I would be as upset as some others. But I always heard several reasons, including the facts that Wildkow has mentioned.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Dec 18 2006, 11:17 AM) [snapback]363864[/snapback]</div>

And this, dear readers, is why I am no longer a liberal ... for all our pious statements back in 1970s, in reality we didn't give a damn about the blood of millions of southeast Asians. Or, as one of my lib friends put it, "who cares, we don't have to go now."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Dec 18 2006, 04:18 AM) [snapback]363659[/snapback]</div>

I think it will devolve into Civil War and personally I hope that a regime friendly to the West prevails. But it will take a regime that is willing to use the tactics necessary to do the job that must be done. It will be violent and bloody but barring some type of fundamental change in their thought processes, IMO, there is no other way.



Wildkow



p.s. The dems have no idea what to do.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Dec 18 2006, 07:09 AM) [snapback]363720[/snapback]</div>

First, although this maybe true after the election (although I doubt it) before the election quite a few people supported an immediate withdraw.



I also find it interesting that only 25% of the people polled thought that the dems had a plan.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...l-results_x.htm

Second, unless this international body that you are talking about is entirely Islamic they will still hate it. In addition don't count on any Islamic country stepping up to the plate unless there is something in it for them. Even then after getting it they will quickly abandon any effort to solve the problem in that region. Reference the Palestinians and the reluctance of the Arab world to assist in those matters. I am mainly speaking about a country/land for the Palestinians.



Wildkow





<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Dec 18 2006, 11:17 AM) [snapback]363864[/snapback]</div>

Nope those are your words not mine. I'm just pointing out that Iraq's behavior reached a level that earned it the Beat Down they so richly deserved. It’s a pity that so many innocents were caught up in the death and destruction but hey, they tolerated the regime, supported it or did nothing to condemn, curtain or complain about the despicable behavior of Saddam and the Bath party.



Wildkow