I wasn't talking about democracy but the specific model of government they're trying to implement in Iraq; in other words, that specific form of democracy. It might work in a country that's more homogeneous, or least doesn't have as much tension between different groups, but it's simply not going to take hold in Iraq. The Iraqi government has had huge problems right from the beginning and they're not going to go away anytime soon. If democracy is going to work in Iraq it will have to be tailored to fit the political and social dynamics of the country and not be a copy of another country's government.
That was a fairly good response, Jester. I have some fundamental problems with what you said, but all in all, I like where you're going. On that note, how do YOU think "democracy" should be implemented in a country that, according to you, is incapable of following a rather simple example of it? (BTW, the last line here wasn't meant to be insulting; I'm just curious, is all.)

That was a fairly good response, Jester. I have some fundamental problems with what you said, but all in all, I like where you're going. On that note, how do YOU think "democracy" should be implemented in a country that, according to you, is incapable of following a rather simple example of it? (BTW, the last line here wasn't meant to be insulting; I'm just curious, is all.)

Why must Iraq have a democracy (of any kind)? Isn't it up to them how their government should be designed and run? Who made us their decider?

:rolleyes:

I'd be interested to see how our government/people would react to invasion and occupation by, say, England or Spain or Japan, and how we'd respond if they showed up on our shores demanding we adopt THEIR method of governance - a constitutional monarchy. Think we'd just roll over and say, "Sure! No problem."?

Is it any surprise that that hasn't happened in Iraq? Is there anyone left on the planet stupid enough to think it will? (Besides George Bush, I mean.)

We need to get the hell out of Iraq and focus on Bin Laden/Al Queda. :mad:

Why must Iraq have a democracy (of any kind)? Isn't it up to them how their government should be designed and run?
Well, they've done a bang-up job thus far, haven't they? That said, you're employing a rather binary way of thinking, Fran. There's more to it than just deciding on their government (which ostensibly should be FOR their people, but I digress). We need these boys to play ball, and we're not about to let a group religious zealots and mephistophelean "presidents" hold the world's economy hostage under the auspices of autonomy when it flies in the face what's right.
Who made us their decider?
Saddam Hussein and then congress, respectively.
I'd be interested to see how our government/people would react to invasion and occupation by, say, England or Spain or Japan, and how we'd respond if they showed up on our shores demanding we adopt THEIR method of governance - a constitutional monarchy.
Oh, because that's a valid comparison. C'mon, Frannie.
We need to get the hell out of Iraq and focus on Bin Laden/Al Queda. :mad:
Well, I agree that we need to focus on Al Queda, for sure.

someone else read "seduced by hitler" and see if you see the parallels to today.

and it also helps back up on how many corporate powers that be'd in the 1930's tried to start their own nazi regime in america.

You realize, of course, that the "islamo-lunitics," as you put it, had no place in Iraq before we arrived. And the Iraqis themselves have been most effective at driving them out of their neighborhoods, not the US. This is an internal matter for the Iraqis. (Odd that so-called conservatives what to get/stay involved in such an issue.)

but if america doesn't have a say so on who rules iraq the oil may not end up in america.

but if america doesn't have a say so on who rules iraq the oil may not end up in america.
W_O_W! - that was profound....

Well, I agree that we need to focus on Al Queda, for sure.Which is one of the main reasons AQ wants is in Iraq, far from their centers of command/recruitment/finance/materiel/propoganda/disinformation, etc., splitting US action and focus into disjointed, unsuccessful parts to fail in detail.

These sub-human scum will attempt to attack us anywhere. They are not that smart... don't give them that much credit.

They will recruit and fight us anywhere their "legions" can get a shot in. Better in the ME than here in the states.

AQ does not care where we are at. That is the point... they will try to attack us where ever we are. We should shun our western "ways" and convert to the radical Islamic code.

We need these boys to play ball

WE need? Who the hell are we? Are the Iraqis obligated to "play ball" just because we say they must? Was there some big worldwide vote to put the U.S. in charge of Iraq, its people, its government, and oh yeah, its oil (if so, I'm curious how the Iraqis voted)? Damn! I must have missed it.

and we're not about to let a group religious zealots and mephistophelean "presidents" hold the world's economy hostage under the auspices of autonomy when it flies in the face what's right.

How exactly are the Iraqis "holding the world's economy hostage?"

Saddam Hussein and then congress, respectively.

I ask again, did I miss the big worldwide vote wherein the entire planet decided that the U.S. would henceforward be in charge of Iraq, its people, its government, and oh yeah, its oil?

:confused:

Oh, because that's a valid comparison. C'mon, Frannie.

You're right, of course. A constitutional monarchy is actually rather similar to a democracy. I should have used a different example, one vastly foreign to our form of governance. The perfect choice, of course, is a military dictatorship, such as they've had in Iraq under Hussein.

So, how do you think Americans would react if a foreign nation invaded and demanded that we adopt military dictatorship as a form of government, all because they believe that our leader, George Bush, is a crazy man who could use his weapons of mass destruction against them?

They are not that smart... don't give them that much credit.When you underestimate the enemy, you play into his hands. This is one of the main problems with the Right's position in this conflict: an arrogance that ignores important realities and results in praising tactical successes while be blinded to strategic loss.

Those guys whom arent that smart,sat and figured out how to attack the financial heart of the western world,which is in the nation with supposedly the best air defence system on the planet,not bad for some 'dumb arabs'.

Paul, it's not nice to put pictures of SMW in your avatar. If she doesn't want to post any pictures of herself, no one else should either.

Ive been thinking of a change for awhile,then a female friend told me I was hung like this guy,whatever that means,so.

When you underestimate the enemy, you play into his hands. This is one of the main problems with the Right's position in this conflict: an arrogance that ignores important realities and results in praising tactical successes while be blinded to strategic loss.
I agree that under-estimation is a fault, but so is over-estimation. Thinking that an enemy is better than he really is leads to paralysis by analysis. We are probably guilty of both aspects in this conflict. I will say that if we ever cede a conflicts "direction" to complete Left driven control, that we will be doomed to failure. One cannot coddle an enemy that wants you dead and/or destroyed. First you must dominate... then you use diplomacy.

My take on the Iraq situation (without the "we should/shouldn't have" political armchair quarterbacking):

The initial thrust to topple Saddam was an exercise in low manned/high tech war. This was the plan driven by Rumsfeld and executed by Franks. This series of collapsing the infrastructre and defeating the army of Saddam was quite effective and quick.

Unfortunately, phase two would be another issue altogether...

The police action and rebuilding of the infrastructure is not something that is a quick fix. It requires many feet on the ground, and dominant presence, and a large quantity of resources and time to implement. We were not prepared for this part, either as a military or in public opinion.

Most thought (and still think) that we toppled the regime in a matter of weeks... surely the installation of a functional self-government there in Iraq would only take a short period of time also. We did not have the resources to seal the borders with Syria and Iran, we did not have the manpower to create a presence in all the towns/cities, and we did not foresee the masses fighting each other (and us) based on religious sects and power-hungry Islamic leaders.



All that being said, we have now turned this into a political finger-pointing issue. We will accomplish nothing while both sides of the aisle pander for power/votes and only look out for their party's election results rather than a solution. The current administration is too arrogant to say "we miscalculated this part" and the Democrats are to busy pointing fingers at the Republicans for future votes. It's kind of like the "reality" survival TV shows that rely on back stabbing and two-faced liars. If these people really tried to "survive" that way... they would ALL die.

The way the whole situation is being handled on both sides sickens me.

Not even the greatest war machine in history can win an unwinable war.
Iraq is a political problem not a military one.

Iraq is a political problem not a military one. considering our foreign policy is pretty much solely based on our military or aid i'd say its both

They will recruit and fight us anywhere their "legions" can get a shot in. Better in the ME than here in the states.Every society has a certain percentage of hotheaded young men who are spoiling for a fight. In the Middle East these young men look at Iraq and see an infidel army occupying a Muslim country -- ergo, they want to go fight it. Al-Qaeda is happy to lend it's name and support to them, but these hotheads would be there whether or not there was an al-Qaeda. Similarly, they would not be there if we weren't. The al-Qaeda that is in Iraq is there because it chooses to be there. They can use these young men to kill Americans and gain prestige amongst radical Muslims -- but it's really just gravy for them. The world-wide terrorist al-Qaeda organization doesn't depend on Iraq for squat, nor does it have to go through Iraq on it's way to targets in the West. It is illogical in the extreme to believe that our presence in Iraq is deterring these people in the least. The opposite, in fact, is the case.

Sedan,

I agree that Iraq and AQ did have very little to do with each other. I will say that the conflict there (and Afganistan) provides a focal point for the AQ leaders to use... thereby keeping them "occupied" there and not plotting attacks here... no more, no less.

Out of curiousity, what is your thoughts on what we should do there now?

I agree that Iraq and AQ did have very little to do with each other. I will say that the conflict there (and Afganistan) provides a focal point for the AQ leaders to use... thereby keeping them "occupied" there and not plotting attacks here... no more, no less.I don't know that they aren't plotting more attacks -- and I'd be very surprised if they were not. IMO another attack is inevitable, and it won't matter one whit who occupies the White House when it comes down.Out of curiousity, what is your thoughts on what we should do there now?I thought we should never have invaded. Having invaded we should have left the next day. We should have left the day after we captured Saddam Hussein. We should have left the day after the Iraqis adopted a constitution. Or the day after they had elections. You get the idea, I'm sure. I have been unequivocally opposed to this moronic misadventure every step of the way. A year ago I would have supported partitioning the country before leaving but now I think that's something the Iraqis will have to do for themselves if that's going to be the end solution. So my answer is the same as Ron Paul's or Dennis Kucinich's: bring the troops home -- starting tomorrow.

WE need? Who the hell are we?
The West, or the modern world......you know, the place that makes real living possible for its inhabitants; (whatever you wanna call it) yourself included.
Are the Iraqis obligated to "play ball" just because we say they must?
Yes, for outside the realm of idealistic kum-bay-yah singing campfire get-togethers, there's an industrialized world that's dependant on oil and big business to bring you A/C power, the Internet, transportation, food, heat, air conditioning, and a paycheck - only there's a problem..........namely, people like Ahmadinejad. The global economy is far more important than his ability (under the auspices of autonomy, of course) to choose who he wants to fuck over in the name of Allah and the ayatollah. His little pissant country can either profit from getting with the program, or he can help level it by fighting for thinly veiled nuclear programs and oil embargos. The choice is his just as it was Saddam's.
Was there some big worldwide vote to put the U.S. in charge of Iraq, its people, its government, and oh yeah, its oil (if so, I'm curious how the Iraqis voted)? Damn! I must have missed it.
Oh, so now we're living in a global democracy, eh? C'mon, Fran. In answer to your question, no - just our vote was needed when Saddam didn't give himself up in 2003. The Iraqis had their "vote" on the matter when they put him in office - with, and what was it again.....100% approval? ::scratches head::
How exactly are the Iraqis "holding the world's economy hostage?"
I was painting with fairly broad brushstrokes - the ME in it's entirety is holding the world's economy hostage with their oil, and they're doing so through extortionate means via religious zealots, corrupt governments, and rogue, mouth-piece presidents. Iraq was but a stepping-stone, and please don't give me some tired "imperialism" speech; it's a classic non sequitur.
I ask again, did I miss the big worldwide vote wherein the entire planet decided that the U.S. would henceforward be in charge of Iraq, its people, its government, and oh yeah, its oil?
No one's under the impression that we should be. Save a few loons here, no one's even HINTED that we're attempting to appropriate, or "henceforth" run Iraq for that matter.
So, how do you think Americans would react if a foreign nation invaded and demanded that we adopt military dictatorship as a form of government, all because they believe that our leader, George Bush, is a crazy man who could use his weapons of mass destruction against them?
That's some pretty shitty bait there, Fran. That's like saying if you like the color red, then you must like the sight of blood. Your parallel is being drawn from a rather disconnected premise - IOW, another non sequitur.

WE need? Who the hell are we?
The West, or the modern world - you know, the place that makes real living possible for its inhabitants; (whatever you wanna call it) yourself included.
Are the Iraqis obligated to "play ball" just because we say they must?
Yes, for outside the realm of idealistic kum-bay-yah singing campfire get-togethers, there's an industrialized world that's dependant on oil and big business to bring you A/C power, the Internet, transportation, food, heat, air conditioning, and a paycheck - only there's a problem..........namely, people like Ahmadinejad.
Was there some big worldwide vote to put the U.S. in charge of Iraq, its people, its government, and oh yeah, its oil (if so, I'm curious how the Iraqis voted)? Damn! I must have missed it.
Oh, so now we're living in a global democracy, eh? C'mon, Fran. In answer to your question, no - just our vote was needed when Saddam didn't give himself up in 2003. The Iraqis had their "vote" on the matter when they put him in office - with, and what was it again.....100% approval? ::scratches head::
How exactly are the Iraqis "holding the world's economy hostage?"
I was painting with fairly broad brushstrokes - the ME in it's entirety is holding the world's economy hostage with their oil, and they're doing so through extortionate means via religious zealots, corrupt governments, and rogue, mouth-piece presidents. Iraq was but a stepping-stone, and please don't give me some tired "imperialism" speech; it's a classic non sequitur.
I ask again, did I miss the big worldwide vote wherein the entire planet decided that the U.S. would henceforward be in charge of Iraq, its people, its government, and oh yeah, its oil?
No one's under the impression that we should be. Save a few loons here, no one's even HINTED that we're attempting to appropriate, or "henceforth" run Iraq for that matter.
So, how do you think Americans would react if a foreign nation invaded and demanded that we adopt military dictatorship as a form of government, all because they believe that our leader, George Bush, is a crazy man who could use his weapons of mass destruction against them?
That's some pretty shitty bait there, Fran. That's like saying if you like the color red, then you must like the sight of blood. Your parallel is being drawn from a rather disconnected premise - IOW, another non sequitur.

No one's under the impression that we should be. Save a few loons here, no one's even HINTED that we're attempting to appropriate, or "henceforth" run Iraq for that matter.
That's not how the bad guys see it or how they spin it out to their troops and money men.

Ain't it funny how when a suppossed Osama said he was going to bleed the US to death through endless war (just like he did to the USSR) no one paid attention to that phrase or the fact that Bush was doing exactly as Osama said. Yet another suppossed Osama is using a liberal talking point and neo-cons are creaming themselves with joy....

He ain't no dummy!

That's not how the bad guys see it or how they spin it out to their troops and money men.
I believe that.

Ain't it funny how when a suppossed Osama said he was going to bleed the US to death through endless war (just like he did to the USSR) no one paid attention to that phrase or the fact that Bush was doing exactly as Osama said. Yet another suppossed Osama is using a liberal talking point and neo-cons are creaming themselves with joy....

yes true. and he/they can do it. it only takes time. the only reason they want to hit america is because americans won't do anything with a corrupt, unconstitutional government.

worried about muslims taking over america? pfffttt...... right. yeah, sure. (that's for the neo-cons).

the only reason they want to hit america is because americans won't do anything with a corrupt, unconstitutional government. So, um, if the Democrats were in office they wouldn't have attacked? They pulled the trigger only after the corrupt Supreme Court gave the White House to the corrupt, unconstitutionalist Republicans? Who have you been talking to?

So, um, if the Democrats were in office they wouldn't have attacked?

If Corporatist toadies and warmongers --which includes both the Dems and the Repubs-- were not in office, they would IMO have not attacked.

Even if the terrorists had tried, if the leaders who were in office were people who were NOT intent on finding an excuse to foment an Iraq war, they would have no doubt used the voluminous intelligence of these people''s planned attacks to thwart said attacks.

So, um, if the Democrats were in office they wouldn't have attacked? They pulled the trigger only after the corrupt Supreme Court gave the White House to the corrupt, unconstitutionalist Republicans? Who have you been talking to? gotta love that kneejerk reaction. No denial of the fact that we got fascists running the country. Only trying to say "well your team would do it too." Listen up newb. The 3 people you just addressed that at have no love for democrats. So learn to actually debate of STFU.

gotta love that kneejerk reaction. No denial of the fact that we got fascists running the country. Only trying to say "well your team would do it too." Listen up newb. The 3 people you just addressed that at have no love for democrats. So learn to actually debate of STFU.Hey, mouth, the question is not whether we have faciasts running the country. It's whether or not that is the only reason the bad guys want to hit America, which is what the post I quoted said. It is not kneejerk to directly address the stupid proposition of a post by pointing to the alternative.

By the way, you didn't address the questions I raised. How kneejerk of you.

So, um, if the Democrats were in office they wouldn't have attacked? They pulled the trigger only after the corrupt Supreme Court gave the White House to the corrupt, unconstitutionalist Republicans? Who have you been talking to?


doesn't matter who controls. they are all a bunch of corrupt sacks of shit.