We're making progress in Iraq

Lol.

"Theres an old saying in Tennessee, actually its in Texas but I'm sure its in Tennassee..."

"Fool me once... um... .... ... shame on you"

LOL after he stops as president he should become a comedian

TGE, I definitely agree with the message of the video (and its kind of funny    ) but I'm afraid you might be opening up a can of worms and this could become the next "why the future doesn't need us post" (200+ posts and no agreement in sight! Its a quagmire! Its like the forum version of Iraq!)

Oh the only one with the balls to argue with me fully is Schem, and he agrees with the fact that Bush is an idiot.

I see no threat.

Edit: Not to say that any of you cant argue, its just Schem does it a special jerkish way that brings out the worst in me.

Do I even want to try and figure out whats in that not-link?

Its quite funny, do watch it if you have a sense of humore

Bush is without a doubt the worst public speaker in any high office in our generation... and perhaps beyond...


But these events are bigger then Bush... and just because the man can't talk his way out of a wet paper bag doesn't mean that everything the US government is doing is wrong.

Very true Karmashock, but it seems to me that much of what the government is doing now is bad. Very bad. These events are bigger than Bush, and in my opinion greater than Bush's ability to handle them. However, to avoid being completely negative, I do agree with the war in Afghanistan (though we could use more troops there), I do agree with the alliance the US, Austrailia, Japan, and India are begining to form (though the nuclear deal was pretty damn stupid), I do agree with fighting terrorism (but not with fighting our constitutional rights). So Bush hasn't gotten everything wrong...I mean statistically he has to accidently get something right in eight years.

P.S.: I seem to be making my prediction,

a self-fulfilling prophecy with this post.

I think we can agree they've made a lot of mistakes but I would downplay much of the long term significance of those mistakes. Most of the patriot act for example has already been over turned and will be either over turned or "sunsetted" in the next few years.


As to Iraq it's important to understand the underlying purpose of that incursion which was to change the middle east. yes, we entered to deal with nuclear weapons, but that wasn't the only reason and in the absence of the nukes the other reasons are all that remain. Iraq was probably a mistake but it can be profitable if we can stabilize the country. That's not going to be easy but it should be worth it.

Again, I agree bush is a horrible speaker and that alone is a major failure as a president... part of the job description is speaking ability. The most disturbing thing about the american political system is that in 2000 our two choices were George Bush or Al Gore.


Both are idiots... That one might be less of an idiot then the other is irrelevant. They're both wrong for America and neither should have been a major contender.


Bush was only an option because the alternative for republicans was John McCain who has a long history of backstabbing the party. And Gore was only considered because he was vice president under Clinton. Much like Bush senior under Reagan. Electing Vice presidents seems to lead to electing people that couldn't run on their own.


Anyway, the republicans really really need someone to run that doesn't completely suck... The democrats seem to have gotten over that since 2004 where they also were running complete losers. I could vote for Hillary for example... she's no where near my ideal... but I don't think I would be embarrassed by her.

As far as I'm concerned, going into Iraq could have been proffered as merely a matter of finishing what we started back in the first Gulf War. AKA: We didn't finish the job for some stupid reason. If we have to let countries fall into dictatorships (and to a degree we do have to at times...) we can at the very least topple said dictatorships the instant they cross the line.

Oh, and Karma? Be very careful with that fine line your treading there. You haven't really come close to it, yet, but there is a difference between the prominent / dominant aspects of that culture and the culture itself. (AKA: Between the terrorists and the "real" Islamics) Forget that, and you set yourself down a dark path indeed.

If you remember back to why we didn't it was because the UN told us not to. We wanted to.

So that's a point to remember in context with the UN not wanting us to this time either. The UN is just a collection of countries... many of whom are dictatorships as well. So keep that in mind when listening to their "opinions"

I'm aware of it... as you say, I haven't crossed that line and won't. However, neither am I afraid of that line. I know where it is... and know how to draw within the lines.

I agree with you on Al Gore...as South Park put it in a show about electing a school mascot, the choice was between a douche and a shit sandwhich. Kerry was a loser too. I don't personally like Hillary and I think that 24-28 years of two families running this country back-to-back is not a good idea. I'd perfer Obama or Edwards (or really Biden, but he doesn't stand a snow ball's chance in hell). I can't say I'd really like any of the Republicans...but I'd go with Guliani out of that field. That being said, with Iraq that nation has not had a stable democratic government ever in its entire history. The real question is whether Iraq CAN have a stable democracy...and how many people have to die to answer that question. In the end, tens of thousands maybe even hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are going to die whether we stay or not (the US news media focuses on the US death toll, but the Iraqi people don't have body armor or anywhere near the level of medical treatment our soldiers get). If we wanted true-self determination for the Iraqis, then we ought to leave now and let them decide what they're going to do with their country (by now I mean begin withdrawing now, I know that several months would pass before the last of our troops got out). If we want a sure bet of making Iraq stable we should put in a dictator, but that would get rid of the last credible explanation for going into Iraq in the first place. I'm not saying Iraq is an easy question. My answer is to leave Iraq and let the Iraqis deal with the problem of living together themselves. Even if we win a military victory over the insurgents...how long will our soldiers have to stay before the different factions are truly reconciled? A telling story comes from the on-going UN peacekeeping force in Bosnia. When UN troops came to a Bosnian village the Bosnians were cheering and welcoming the soldiers. They told the soldier something along the lines of "don't ever leave! The moment you leave the killing will start again!" Its been almost a decade since UN troops went in and there is no word on when they will get out. Iraq is much bigger than Bosnia and, cold-blooded as it may sound, the US may not be able to fund an indefinite occupation of Iraq. Even if we could, those soldiers would not be available should they desperately be needed somewhere (like in Afghanistan or if a convetional war with China broke out). In the end those troops will HAVE to leave. And if the Iraqis can't reconcile their differences, then the only difference of when we leave is how many American dead is added to the Iraqi dead. The only course which I believe has even the slight possibility of forming a stable non-dictatorial Iraq is Joe Biden's loose federation plan. I don't believe the chances are good that it will work, but that is the only plan which I know of that I would be willing to keep US troops in Iraq for, at least for a while.

Modern Islam = Nazi party. The modern Islamic Terrorist groups can trace their roots directly to Hitler’s Nazi party in the 30's. The imam of Palestine spent the war in Berlin and in 48 with the help of the Nazis he brought back with him, declared war on Israel the day it was formed.

His influence is felt today in the Islamic brotherhood and Al-Qida.
300,000 Muslims in Palestine were dancing in the streets on Sept 11, 2001

Those who follow Islam are not the enemy but are victims of the enemy.

The enemy is Islam! It is an old form of Fascism, KILL EVERYONE WHO REFUSES TO THINK LIKE ME AND DO AS I SAY! Kill everyone who is not like us! I have met many Muslims in my life (over 400) and with the exception of only a small few they refuse to say that bin-Laden is wrong in what he is doing. (As according to the Koran, not that they agree with what he is doing)

When I see the Middle East I see swastikas in all they do. Kill the Jews, death to America and so on. The specter of Hitler is alive and well in Islam.

How many times has Islam declared war on Western Civilization? Is this the 8th or 9th time?

When will we learn that we need to exterminate them there as we did in Germany? How many more millions will we allow them to murder before we cut off the serpents head?

Islam cannot coexist with the rest of the world. We must distroy it or it will distroy us.

Just wait until Packistan gives someone else the Bomb, like they have givin the ability (how to)to build one to Iran.

Good -- I was just pointing it out. You'd be amazed how many people don't come close to understanding that distinction (I know I have been, on several occasions when I've encountered people who just don't get it).



Say rather how long until we teach those idiots not to use (naked) force as political tools. I sincerely doubt anyone, even the biggest of idiots, thinks for a second that the democratic and republican parties could ever be "reconciled". Yeah, I know, thats not really a valid analogy, but teaching them to work from within the framework of a government is a much better (and possible) option than trying to get them to get along. If nothing else, when a new group arises you don't have to do it all over again.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that we really need to just go in on the grassroots level and teach them what democracy is. Teach them not to kill each other over BS crap like Shiite or Sunni. Teach them the basics of separation of church and state, freedom of speech, rule of law, and the like... but not mom's apple pie, thats all ours . On a more practical level, I mean help them establish not just the forms but the reality of a free, democratic government, but don't try to overwrite their culture.

There is no one else on the democratic side with the wisdom to make the right compromises and the Republicans won't win the next election... The elections are usually close and the winds of favor are filling other sails.

I don't like the same families running things either. But sadly to win you need to control campaign machines and those campaign machines are passed down from from one member of family to the next like armies...


I don't see how to nullify the situation and looking at the people that would take over instead doesn't make me very hopeful that it would be a good thing. We need entirely new blood.


We also need people wise enough not to go changing everything. Change a little or simply do very little such that you don't break anything. There is far more right about america then wrong and thus more to lose through change then to be gained.


Except that if we leave they won't be left alone. We'll be giving them to the Iranians.

The Iranians are one of our real problems. The long term goal is to turn Iraq into a weapon against Iran and radical islam. But first we must make them strong.


It can be done... they get stronger every day. Every day the Iranians have to try harder to screw things up. Currently that's no so much a problem for htem as they have resources to burn. But we're squeezing Iran. Slowly choking them. And they'll have less resources for that sort of thing into the future. Especially as Iraq becomes strong enough to deal with the more insidious elements. Iraq should become an Arab Israel. A fortress of freedom in a sea of fanatic death squads. And being arab... and muslim... they will not be able to attack it as being "jewish" or some racist element.



If in three or four years Iraq still needs US forces policing the streets then I'll admit it's time to go. By then we should be able to pull back to staging basis that make surgical strikes on enemy hot spots or simply make it clear to Iran that it cannot survive an invasion.


Then 10 years after that we should be able to have a few bases that exist purely to serve our own interests in the area while Iraq more or less able to take care of itself.
==================================================
====================================================

No... radical islamofacists can be called nazis... but islam itself can't be. You've crossed the line.



We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. It important to walk the line between order and chaos.


Order allows for growth... for health... and chaos allows for learning and evolution... change.


We have had quite a bit of chaos lately... A bit or order would do us all well. Stabilize all situations as best as possible and try to calm everything down. Changing things isn't as important right now as simply holding things together and keeping people safe enough for there to be some healing.
================================================================
============================================================

That's an interesting point. Channel the conflict into democracy... interesting.

Quoted "A telling story comes from the on-going UN peacekeeping force in Bosnia. When UN troops came to a Bosnian village the Bosnians were cheering and welcoming the soldiers. They told the soldier something along the lines of "don't ever leave! The moment you leave the killing will start again!" Its been almost a decade since UN troops went in and there is no word on when they will get out."


You may want to check your facts regarding Bosnia. Most of the US troops are out of Bosnia at this point and they were replaced by the 7,500 man EUFOR in December of 2004. As of Feb 2007, it was announced that they were cutting that force to 2,500.

Also, UNPROFOR was a joke in Bosnia. The only thing they were good for was getting captured by the Serbs during the civil war. Only when NATO intervened in 1995 did the war finally stop. So to classify the force in Bosnia as a UN peacekeeping force is a mistake since its been NATO from 1995-2004 and EU from 2004 to the present.

With regards to Iraq, following the example of Bosnia would not be too bad of an idea. The country is divided into the Serb Republic (mostly serb) to the North and the Bosnian Federation (mix of croat and bosniac) to the south. They have a federal government that ties the two portions together and they share the presidency equally. They have a croat, a serb, and a bosniac and they rotate the chairman of the presidency between them every 8 months so everyone shares the power. Iraq could be divided up into three different areas and some sort of power sharing agreement could be made between the different groups.

The only problem with channeling the sunni, kurds, and shiite factions into democracy is that the shiites have about 60% of the Iraqi population. That is more than enough to crush the sunnis and kurds combined, and everyone knows this. That's why I think only the federalist structure with what essentially would be three domestically autonomus regions, but with linked foreign policy and oil wealth sharing (because otherwise the Sunni region, which has no oil, couldn't support itself). That way the sunni and kurds could be protected from shiite domination. However, in foregin policy, the shiite majority would again ensure shiite domination of Iraq's foreign policy unless you create an undemocratic system by sending the same number of delegates from each region, which the shiites would reject. Thus, while I'd be willing to let our troops stay for several more years if we tried a federal system, I'm still doubtful it would work.

AragonVR,

Thank you for the correction. I'm glad the EU and NATO seems to have gotten Bosnia fixed up pretty well. That kind of power sharing and federal system is basically what I'm proposing for Iraq. However, there are some aspects of Iraq that are unlike Bosnia. First of all, Iraqi polls show the Iraqis don't want the US to stay anymore (except for the kurds), the Bosnian people (and by bosnian I mean basically all the ethnic groups) want NATO or EU troops in their nation. Second, NATO troops were able to stop the fighting. Prior to "Coalition of the willing" troops arriving (basically the US and the UK) in Iraq there was no fighting (mainly because Sadaam was killing anyone who even thought of having a civil war, but the fact remains that the civil war started only after our troops arrived). Even with the "troop surge" (which our military leaders have said cannot be maintained indefinitely) the fighting has not stopped. To truely stop the fighting will take many more soldiers and the Iraqi brigades we've been training suck for the most part. So that would mean more US troops, and those troops are already deployed in other parts of the world. We could and ought to get rid of our bases in Germany and Western Europe, but that would piss off the Europeans who like the econmic boost the bases bring to their local economies. I wouldn't want to pull troops out of, Afghanistan, South Korea, or Taiwan personally, so from everything I've heard, we're becoming strapped for troops. Thirdly, We're basically alone in this endeavor now. Spain pulled out, Italy pulled out, and now Britain is pulling out. Bosnia had a large group of nations providing troops, in Iraq there are only US soldiers (the like 200 japanese troops who can't even legally fight don't count). I would like to see Iraq end up like Bosnia, I'm just not holding my breath in expectation.

There is a difference between democracy and a federal form. And, on top of that, you missed the basic point of my comment. If we teach them to operate as a democracy, to focus their "bloodshed" through politics instead of violent force, then we'll have achieved a thousand year plus leap in their socio-political system.

Or are you going to argue that just because blacks/Asians/Mexicans/Arabians are a minority part of the population, they don't wield enough power to protect themselves against whites preying on 'em? The flaw with that statement -- past the obvious (and looking at the civil rights movement, wrong) "we'd never do such a thing!" -- is that not only does no one group ever stand on its own (each minority protecting each other to protect themselves, to a limited degree) but the majority (whites) have pretty much clued themselves into a fairer world, and even if a majority of the majority tried any such bullshit they'd do it over my dead body. The combination is enough to protect the minorities, even if their own voting block isn't large enough to pull it off.

That said, you're quite right that simply installing a democratic government won't achieve that. Part of our shield is -- however disgusting it might be -- politics. Neither democrats nor republicans are willing to loose any weapon they might have against one another, so they tread around the minorities very, very lightly. And because those political parties don't break down along the minority lines -- AKA we don't have the parties representing each racial/religious/geographic group -- it means that they don't grab on the racial issue to undercut their opponents (you just know some of those slime balls would love to use that kind of dirty trick, if it would work).



Even if we sat on every single Iraqi in the nation, that would only suppress and not stop the fighting (To be accurate add: unless we left those troops there long enough for the people who thought in terms of violence to die off and kids who were raised under a climate of piece to take over). If we want to "truly stop the fighting" we need to teach them another way of thought and life, wherein naked force isn't the basis of political power. Yeah, thats a long term action. We're going to have to reinforce a government thats shaky, and help reform a culture while at the same time dealing with terrorist attacks from radicals that are scared shitless for good reason. After all, they really do not need, as another poster described, an "Arab Israel" to deal with. The Jewish one is giving them enough headaches.

Ron,

First of all, I was assuming that each religious/ethnic group would more or less be a monolithic block. That is not how things work in the US (with the exception that the vast majority of blacks are democrats rather than republicans). However, politicians do still occasionally use race to get votes even in the US. I have two instances. One was Harold Ford Jr.'s (a black man) congressional race in Tenesse was, at least in part, defeated due to a very racist television add (kind of like how the swiftboat group helped kill Kerry). While his opponent's campaign did not run the ad and I think Mr. Ford's opponent ended up denouncing the ad, it sure helped his canididacy. The other instance would be the mayor of New Orleans's blantantly racist statement that he would rebuild New Orleans as a "choclate city" (basically saying rebuilding New Orleans as a city soley for blacks). All this and America has been actively trying to fight racism for almost 50 years. Even during the civil rights movement many southern politicians were elected to try and stop integration. America has been lucky in that the majority whites have not formed a monolithic bastion against the other races in this country. Many times, those wanting more equality and toleration were in the minority, but they were always a significant minority from abolitionists to the civil rights movement. In Iraq however, the shiites not only have the same religion, but they also live in the same region. One thing that has made American white's views so diverse is the fact that whites are spread all over the country and different regions have different needs. Not so with the shiites, who all live in one region and thus will want to further that region's interests on top of furthering the interests of shiites in general. Therefore, it seems more likely to me that in Iraq, each sectarian/ethnic group will be monolithic and thus the shiite majority will win in a democracy every time. And that is what the sunni insurgents are fighting (that and to get the US out).

As for reforming their culture, is that not an inherently arrogant statement? American culture (which has many points that are still in flux) is only about 400 years old. Muslim culture is 1400 years old, over 3 times older. There has been civilization in Iraq for 6000 years and thus Iraqi culture has been evolving 12 times as long as our own. Now, don't get me wrong, I personally prefer American culture to Iraqi culture, but that is only because I was born an American. Perhaps Iraqis don't want American-like culture or don't want an American governmental system. Perhaps they hate the fact that we are dictating how they should change their culture, when their ancestors were building magnificent ziggaurats and cities while much of Europe was inhabited by hunter-gatherers. Some of our most important crops, like wheat or barley, were domesticated where Iraq currently is. Some of the oldest law codes and literary epics come from Mesopotamia. These people have survived thousands of years with their culture, so why should they accept the upstart American ideas about how to live and what governments to have? Just keep in mind that just because our culture works for us, doesn't mean other older cultures will have it work for them.

Goshy gosh, twas only a joke peeps.

EW!
a topic thread that started without me, gross.

actually its the fact that we are making progress (and that the surge kindof worked...) that is what you're wrong about.
oh this is great coming from your sarcastic pie hole.

I know, I have actually been patinetly waiting for your banter to enter my hallowed domain



I meant it in the scincerest way *whistles*



Thats the topic of the thread isnt it? We are making progress in Iraq, and we have been for the past 4 years

oh! you just ruined my entire point by agreeing, damn.

that being said its finally good to hear somebody saying we can pull a little back in the near future, even if its been long in the coming.