do you feel the US needs to leave Iraq

Yes, eventually - but not yet.

Welcome to AllForums :)

*Agrees with DrewM*

Welcome to AllForums!

I think there will be troops in iraq for a very long time. we still have troops in japan and germany, is ee no reason why we would leave Iraq. we like to have a military presence in the middle east, and having bases in Iraq makes th most sense.

Originally posted by Travh20
I think there will be troops in iraq for a very long time. we still have troops in japan and germany, is ee no reason why we would leave Iraq. we like to have a military presence in the middle east, and having bases in Iraq makes th most sense.

I must agree with Drew and say that we must leave iraq, but not if it means letting the country dissolve into a civil war.

I do think that we will probably leave in June when we are scheduled to regardless of the human cost, because our presence there is a huge political liability for Bush. Yes Trav, we have troops in Japan and Germany, but they have not requested that we leave yet, and they aren't killing off a few soldiers every day either. Both are good reasons to think about leaving Iraq. Our desire for military bases in the region is no justification to occupy another country against their wishes. It would make far more sense to find a country that would welcome US troops if we want a base in the area.

we havent even been there a year yet pagan. the killings will go down as we kill the terrorists and take their weapons. its not vietnam where there is some huge country supplying the terrorists with weapons, they have what they have, once they run out, thats it. of course there will be a small trickle of smuggled arms, and there are so many weapons there already that it will be years until they ae gone, but still. it has been a while since the last american was killed. and soon the stretchs between attacks will grow, unitl they are far and few between. there were pockets of SS men who held out for a long time after the end of the war, fanatics who refused to accept the fact they had lost. as it will always be in any country that is taken over.

I am not saying that I want to keep 200,000 troops there forever, but we should always have someone there, as it is easier to respond to crisis when you are right there instead of going through the whole proccess of moving troops and equipment back over there again.

Agree with Trav in that the US will probably keep a base in Iraq.

Eventually the violence in Iraq will die down. It took many years in Germany to settle the country after WWII.

The constitution that has just been agreed upon is a major step for the middle east. The countries in the middle east do not have democracies and freedoms like we do in the west. Right in the middle will be an Iraq with the type of freedoms and rights that most citizens of middle eastern countries can only dream of.

It's a huge mess right now - but so long as the US stays the course (& gradually brings in the UN) - it could end up being a great success story. It will be 30 years before Bush gets any credit for it.

Well now Rummy said there would be no permenent bases in Iraq.

There were no americans killed during US occupation of Germany. Zero Nada one.

Bring in a multinational force, relinquish the absolute power the U.S. wields. The Iraqi's are smart people, they can work this out on their own. But as long as the U.S remains a force, it is going to attract the same type of mercenaries that were drawn to Afghanistan during the war with the Soviet Union.

History is just repeating itself. As long as this country is drenched in oil, it will have conflict. Mark my words.

Bushy Boy has everything too screwed up now to leave Iraq. It will be interesting to see how the Democratic President will handle Bush's mess when he beat Bush's pants off in November. :p

Originally posted by Pepper
There were no americans killed during US occupation of Germany. Zero Nada one.

Are you *#&$#*%# kidding me??? There were loony Germans taking potshots at Americans all of the time! Lots of them got killed.

I don't think so. Maybe I am wrong but I agree with Pepper - the problem in Germany after 1945 was the cold war, not resistance against the US troops. I have never heard of german guerila after the victory. But maybe you have information I do not have ?

I read it in a commentary somewhere within the last two weeks in an article about the current Iraqi occupation. Can't find it though, sorry. It was, of course, no where near as big of a problem as it is in Iraq.

I've been reading some WWII books recently & just finished one about Rosevelt & Truman. It talked about post war germany and mentioned problems they had after the war ended during occupation. Not sure if any US troops were killed - I would find it hard to imagine that none were killed, but overall it was a difficult time but not specifically like Iraq is now.

But, the key issue is that post war Germany & post war Iraq are very different in terms of time (now is 50 years since WWII) and also culture - Middle eastern culture being very different than german culture in 1945. One cannot be compared closely to the other in terms of events & details, but can be reasonably compared in terms of it wasn't plain sailing for several years after the war ended.

The forces at work in Iraq are certainly not fighting for a better Iraq - if they were they would be helping the transition - not sending in suicide bombers. The majority of the rebellion in Iraq is also probably not Iraqies. Iraq has never been a culture where sucide bombers would flourish - it's simply not in their nature and history. These elements are certainly external forces on a crusade not for the future of Iraq, but a miss-guided crusade against the positive future Iraq can have.

As Iraq grows (which it will) then the population will bring a halt to this type of terrorism because it will be in their best interests to do so - until they feel a modicum of security then they will be unlikely to act firmly.

In 50 years from now it's my guess that the whole middle east will be changed for the better. Look at Iran - the population are fed up with theocracy and yearn for a better life with more freedoms. Iraq can be the catalyst for good things - but it will not happen overnight.

The one thing that struck me about WWII is nothing good comes cheap. In that instance - over 2million died to usher in the world order we have now and the free Europe without war for almost 60 years.

Originally posted by DrewM
The one thing that struck me about WWII is nothing good comes cheap. In that instance - over 2million died to usher in the world order we have now and the free Europe without war for almost 60 years.

While I agree with you about most of what you wrote I have to correct this : much more than 2 milion died !

Soviet Union* 25,568,000
China 11,324,000
Germany 7,060,000
Poland 6,850,000
Japan 1,806,000
Yugoslavia 1,700,000
Rumania* 985,000
France* 810,000
Hungary* 750,000
Austria 525,000
Greece* 520,000
Italy 410,000
Czechoslovakia 400,000
Great Britain 388,000
USA 295,000
Holland 250,000
Belgium 85,000
Finland 79,000
Canada 42,000
India 36,000
Australia 29,000

(plus some other countries…)
source : http://bss.sfsu.edu/tygiel/Hist427/texts/wwiicasualty.htm
Total: c 61 million

I also hope that in 50 years Middle east will be a better place. But i am not sure that the iraqi occupation is the best way to this…

no one wants to pay a price for anything anyomre, they think the UN can sweet talk dictators into listening, LMAO the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants from time to time, so says Tom Jefferson.

oh, astra, the US KIA in WW2 was over 400,000 men

Only time will tell. One certainty is ignoring UN resolutions and talking for 50 years would not achieve any change for the good.

Since when does Bush give a damn about the UN ? This war has certainly not been decalared in the name of UN - it has in fact been started in spite of all UN rules !

Travh - you may be right about the US casualties for WWII, I just picked the first site I could find on WWW. Feel free to give us your reference, as you always do.

Originally posted by astrapol2
Since when does Bush give a damn about the UN ? This war has certainly not been decalared in the name of UN - it has in fact been started in spite of all UN rules !


Astropol - come on, you know that is baloney. What UN rule was broken by invading Iraq?? Tell me even one rule.

On the other hand - Iraq broke multiple resolutions, even 1441 called for serious consequences.

The route through the UN prior to the war may not have been ideal or necessarily the right way to do it - but no intenational law was broken & no UN rules were broken. In fact it was technically on 100% firm legal footing.

Drew, you are certainly aware that this war was conducted without any international legality. This is precisely why the polemic was so fierce just before the war - Powell tried to get a Un resolution to back the war and most countries (including France with the veto threat) refused to vote this resolution. So USA and UK went to war without any UN support.

More legal points in this article :

Blix dismisses argument that war was legal

The former UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix today rubbished the (UK) government's argument that war in Iraq was legalised by existing security council resolutions.

He said Britain and the US would have needed a second resolution explicitly authorising the use of force against Saddam Hussein's regime for the invasion to have been legal.

But that resolution - presented as a successor to resolution 1441's threat of "serious consequences" if Iraq did not cooperate with the inspectors - was never tabled as it became apparent that not enough security council members would support it.

Three days before the invasion, the British government published a summary of the advice from the attorney general, its highest ranking lawyer, stating that 1441 revived resolutions passed since the 1991 Gulf war ceasefire and therefore permitted a fresh invasion.

Mr Blix today said he disagreed. "I don't buy the argument that the war was legalised by the Iraqi violation of earlier resolutions," he told the Independent.

The former weapons inspector, an international lawyer by training, said he did not believe that resolutions passed by the entire security council would give Washington and London, two of its permanent members, sufficient "ownership" of their authority to act alone.

(more on http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1162951,00.html)

Originally posted by DrewM
Astropol - come on, you know that is baloney. What UN rule was broken by invading Iraq?? Tell me even one rule.


See Principle VI subs. (a) in the following link.

http://www.un.org/law/ilc/texts/nurnberg.htm

Originally posted by DrewM
The countries in the middle east do not have democracies and freedoms like we do in the west.


what about Israel?

frnakly, having lived in the middle east, and having tons og fmaily and freinds there, I really don't think things will be great in 50 years. it's such an intense and complicated situation, and the fact that so many countries from other parts of the world have a stake in the outcome doesn't help at all. something needs to be done about the situation, but I really don't think that going into countries and changing the governments to that of the occupying country will do any good. it will only lead to another wave of imperialism, which will do nobody any good.

ya, we wuld all rather see saddam hussein type regimes than so called american imperialism anyday of the week :rolleyes:

that's not what I'm saying. the point I'm trying to make is that there are much better ways of solving the problem than what we're doing right now.

really? name a few that Mr Hussein would have agrred with and voluntarily left power

Originally posted by Travh20
really? name a few that Mr Hussein would have agrred with and voluntarily left power


he wouldn;t have agreed to anything, and some sort of overthrowing of his regime probaly would have happened, but I really don't think that the war in Iraq was the way to go about it. it should have been a joint ventutre between amny countries, and with U.N. trained troops ready to rebuild the country. most armies aren't trained to handle post war type situations, and this includes the U.S. army. although they may have been well prepared for battle, they have no clue how to handle what they're doing now.

How long did the U.N. try to negotiate with Sadaam? How many hundreds of thousands of people died during his rise to power? How many ultimatum's did the U.N. give Sadaam, only to have him spit in their faces because he knew their threats were empty?

Next time someone disagree's with the war, how bout telling us how you would have handled the situation had you been president. Do you think sticking our heads in the sand and ignoring Sadaam was a better idea? Do you think Iraq is in the process of improving itself now as opposed to having Sadaam still in power? Or do you think they were better off living in fear of his death squads and homocidal sons?

it's not our responsibilty as a country to deal with Saddam. we have enough problems at home, we can't go arouns strating wras wherever we please. it's not as if this was actually a human rights issue for Bush, it's realy naive to assume that it was anything but political. if it's really such an important thing we would have done it right, as opposed to rushing in. I honestly don't have the answers, but what I do know is that the war didn't work. the U.N.'s peacekeeping troups aboslutely have to be involved with thi kin of thing, it's the only gorups well trained and politically neutral enough to handle rebuilding a country.

rushing in. LOL, I like that. 12 years, dozens of resolutions, warnings, sanctions, ya, we rushed right in there! It jut doesnt make sense when all these people oppose the war, but turn around and say saddam should be removed from power, he is terrible person, blah blah blah, then when the time comes to take him out they oppose it. if anything is political it is the opposition of the war, because the same people who oppose it clearly claim to want saddam out of there. I guess they wanted it under a demcrat president, tehn we could do no wrong, our soldiers would be saints sent to rescue the poor oppresed people of iraq.

and if you think the UN is politically neutral , you are naieve. and if you think the war didnt work, when a year has not even passed yet, you really mean you hope it all goes south so you can get your boy kerry in there. you are so transparent, its really sad. 12 years isnt enough time for the UN to work its magic diplomatically, but we are supposed to have it all squared away and pull out leaving a sparkling new constitutional democracy in less than 12 months. take a hike.

It's funny, the UN inspectors were searching for weapons in Iraq. If I recall it was Bush who sent them out...of Iraq.

They were reporting no weapons, but Mr. Bush was so forceful in going in he didn't listen to the inspectors.

Now who was right...? The inspectors!

They were doing their JOB, hellO! We had them in Iraq, searching for the weapons! They didn't find any! Did we listen, NO! Have we found any now? NO!

Ummm...but nice try

:hitout:

Saddam should have gone. But the WORLD should have done it.

Of course liberals are against this war, not because we were ridding Saddam, it was BECAUSE we did it ALONE. We did it on the thinking he had WMD’s, not to save the civilians. President Bush has adopted that idea after there were no WMD.

If we had the UN, and world support backing us I’d be all for it. The UN would of done a better, job at handling this. Plus our deficit would not nearly be as high! That is what we are mad about, because he went in alone, and now all of this is happening to our country.

I highly doubt all of the civilian causalities would be nearly as high, and the people in Iraq would not have been left without water and electricity for so long. The UN would have done a more clam, peaceful way in handling this.

Plus, how is Iraq war on terror? He was never linked to September 11th or Osama Bin Laden. Aren’t we suppose to going after terror, like what happened in Spain?

:rolleyes:

LOL, yes, the UN, answer to all of our prayers. really, there was no good reason to not wait around for them to decide what to do :rolleyes: and with the inspectors, how can you say they were doing their job? ya, they were there, but they called ahead to let the iraqis know they were coming, for a suprise inspection! they spent all of 2 hours "searching" a several hundred acre complex with hundreds of buildings. if thats doing your job, I hate to see what not doing it looked like. and if you think the UN would do a better job think again. tell me one thing the UN has done and finished, just one. look at somalia, and haiti, both UN missions, both miserable failures. what has the UN done that would make you think they could totally square iraq away any beter tahn we have? who rebuilt germany and japan? the UN? yuo keep complaining about going in alone, but never stop to think that if we waited for france and germany, the two countires who you seem to consider to be the whole world, we would still be waiting!

Do I think they are ahead of the world...please tell me where I've said that? Your whole post is so funny.

The UN found no weapons, and did we? No. So the Iraqi's never were "hiding" anything now were they?

If they had been "hiding" something the UNITED STATES would have found it by now. Have we? NOPE. So the UN was doing a fine job, and Bush kicked them out...because he couldn't wait. He was so keen on thinking they had them, and that the UN sucked at looking for the weapons. Well Bush was indeed wrong.

a year obvisouly isn't long enough to deal with the problem, but it's a fact that U.S. tropps are trained for combat, not peacekeeping. once again, that's what U.N. forces are for, and they are much better at it than our troops. although it hasn't ben long enough to totally rebuild the country, it was obvious from the moment the official fighting ended that the U.S. army can't handle what it has to deal with right now, becasue it smply isn't trained to do it.

tell me whammy bar, what country does this magical UN army you always speak of come from? is there a UN country? is there a UN army training base out there? the answer is no. the UN has no army, it has nothing but paper pushers. they use the armys of other countires, mainly the US Army, put them in a blue helmet and thats your UN army. what you are basically saying is you want the UN in charge of the Iraq rebuild, because you feel your own country couldnt find their ass with a map and two hands. well let me remind you, the UN was in iraq, and they pulled out because it was to dangerous. are those the people you want in charge?

The UN people that pulled out were civilians. They pulled out because the US could not control security.

all of the UN is civilians. maybe whammybar can get this UN army in there to guard the UN civilians so they can save the day like they did in somalia.

I agree that the UN is a joke, but now is the time for the UN to take over Iraq.

so you want an admitted joke organization to take over iraq? why do you think we are doing such a bad job? they have a constitution, the attacks are way down, electricity and oil production are back up to normal, the schools are doing great, event the poll that Hutz posted says the majority of iraqis are happier now then ever. if we let the UN come in then all the countires in the UN will be bitching about what to do. we are going to hand over power to the iraqis in june, if they want the UN to help they will be free to ask for it then, until then, let the people who liberated them, namely us, the brits, the polish, spanish and all the other countires do the job. we dont need monday morning QB's in the UN looking over our shoulder.

For all the reasons you mention - now is the time to hand over the reins to the UN. Regardless of the UN's lack of ability to make tough decisions - the UN does have a credibility across the globe that the US simply does not have.

Handing it over to the UN now is the right message to send.

handing over control to the iraqis in June is the right message to send, handing over control to the beurocrats in the UN is an appeasement effort desired by those who wish to kiss the ass of the UN dissenters in an attempt to kiss and make better the wrongs that we never did. its really sad we are the bad guys in all of this, all we did was liberate an entire country after 30 years of saddam hussein. you would think we took away all of their freedoms instead of giving them more then they have ever known

Yes, lets give them control of their Government then leave. That will fix everything, because you know there are just no religious feuds, and or problems. hahahahahaha....:D

Seriously, the UN is far better then the Bush administration at handling any situation. Why would we want Bush handling Iraq...just to lead another country down the drain...?:confused:

overdose, name one thing the UN has done right, name one country they have gone into and turned around for the better. they are a debating society, jsut as W said, nothing more. for americans to hang their hopes and dreams on such a blatent anti american group is very sad and discouraging. of course it seems the anti american americans are the ones to cry for UN control first.

There is a very good reason why the UN should take control of the situation in Iraq. It is not a question of competence, it is not a question of military expertise. It is the fact that Iraqi people just DO NOT WANT THE US OCCUPATION TO LAST !
UN is a neutral organiaztion. It is far from perfect, sure, but it was precisely set for this kind of situation.
UN is weak, and that is a good point in this case since Iraqi people won't be as paranoid about a UN administration.

Nobody wants another country, whatever it is, to rule his land. Especially when this country is so different from yours.

Originally posted by astrapol2
There is a very good reason why the UN should take control of the situation in Iraq. It is not a question of competence, it is not a question of military expertise. It is the fact that Iraqi people just DO NOT WANT THE US OCCUPATION TO LAST !
UN is a neutral organiaztion. It is far from perfect, sure, but it was precisely set for this kind of situation.
UN is weak, and that is a good point in this case since Iraqi people won't be as paranoid about a UN administration.

Nobody wants another country, whatever it is, to rule his land. Especially when this country is so different from yours.

UN military expertise is an oxymoron. they have no military, and they have no expertise. and if you think the arabss respond to weakness you have been severly mislead. arabs only respond to strength. a weak UN will get rolled up and thrown against the wall in no time. the UN is a joke.they fail at everything they do. teh US and Iraq are handleing things fine,a nd come june when the handover of power happens, if the iraqis want the UN there, they will ask for it. I just dont see how taking the camo helmets off our soldiers and putting blue helmets on them is going to change much in the eyes of the iraqis.

Originally posted by Travh20
I just dont see how taking the camo helmets off our soldiers and putting blue helmets on them is going to change much in the eyes of the iraqis.

That's where you're wrong. Because they will no longer feel that they are occupied by a nation, only that there is apeace keeping force (which maybe american soldiers) with a legal international mandate.
I do not pretenc that UN will solve every problem. I just can't see how the USA can cope with this alone.

and when the blue helmets start getting blown up on roads by IED's are you going to cry and get all hurt inside becasue your only their to help? or will you just fall back on the old blame Bush standby?

Originally posted by Travh20
and when the blue helmets start getting blown up on roads by IED's are you going to cry and get all hurt inside becasue your only their to help? or will you just fall back on the old blame Bush standby?

Hardly the point of discussion Trav - you are spinning out of control again.

what the hell are you talking about? we were talking aobut UN troops, how is that not a point of discussion?

the UN must go to Irak. many people die becuase American solders are there. Irak people dont want Americans in there country. if UN go to Irak war will finish.

So if we take our troops out of Iraq and replace them with the UN, all the problems in Iraq are over and they're as peaceful as harmony through the hills?

no, if the UN takes over in iraq and we leave, they will get booted out in no time, a new dictator will take over, he will take away free press and we will never hear about the new attrocities, which is close enough to peace for the UN. Out of sight out of mind!

The UN taking over does not mean the US leaves.

of course not, becasue they will have to use our troops to give them any teeth

Great reasoning guys. Lets not fix the problem at hand. Lets just worry about appearances. All suggestions to let the U.N. take over at this point is just more P.C. garbage from the scared left.

its like they see it all starting to come together now and want to get in on it before they are to late, like the french who rolled into paris like liberators in WW2 like they were the ones who blasted theri way hrough Nromandy o get their

Originally posted by HaVoK
Great reasoning guys. Lets not fix the problem at hand. Lets just worry about appearances. All suggestions to let the U.N. take over at this point is just more P.C. garbage from the scared left.

As much as I dislke theUN - it actually is great reasoning. The US has no credibility across the world and particularly in that region. the UN is neutral and has a lot of credibiliy.

The issue is saving needless US soldier deaths and sharing the burden as Iraq moves on.

Originally posted by DrewM
As much as I dislke theUN - it actually is great reasoning. The US has no credibility across the world and particularly in that region. the UN is neutral and has a lot of credibiliy.

The issue is saving needless US soldier deaths and sharing the burden as Iraq moves on. OK...but could this not be the very thing needed to help our credibility when the world observes how we keep our promises of leaving after a stable government has been elected?

As has been stated before, the only difference if you bring the U.N. in now is that you exchange covers for the soldiers and appease weak nations who only want to sit on the sidelines and reap rewards anyway.

I dont see how anyone could not see how this could actually help the world view of the U.S. in the long run. If anything COULD help the jealousy that pervades the opinions of other countries opinions of us.

The difference is not just the soldiers uniforms. It is the decision making process that changes. The US needs to get out of Iraq - we are not looking for medals. Hussain is gone, they have a constitution and its prime time that the UN took over.

Originally posted by HaVoK

As has been stated before, the only difference if you bring the U.N. in now is that you exchange covers for the soldiers and appease weak nations who only want to sit on the sidelines and reap rewards anyway.


I think part of our credibility problem stems from the fact that we went to Iraq because of the WMD's that Saddam had, and that somehow became the liberation of an oppressed people, and now you're talking about weak nations wanting to reap rewards without being willing to participate in the invasion of Iraq in the beginning.

When you talk about reaping rewards what kind of reward do you mean?

we are going to skip the middle man and hand over direct control to the iraqis in june. the UN need no interfere with their paper pushers. this isnt some vanity mission to make the world look good in the eyes of the arab world, this is serious, and needs to be taken seriously. turning over control of turning Iraq into a functioning democracy should be left to the experts, namely us, and not left up to Mr Kofi Annan from Ghana and his band of european flunkies

Experts? Yes our country was the real, true first republic….or democracy (that lasted), but the experts have died....so your getting nowhere with that. Many other countries have democracies…we aren’t the only ones, Trav.

As for all of this, your right we can’t hand it over to the UN. I’m liberal, but Bush started it…so he needs to finish it. He is going to do a shitty job, but that’s the price you pay for having a shitty president.

Although the UN would have been a lot better, and we could be focusing on terror no Iraq….but instead we have to spend billions on Iraq….and then put our own country second because Bush was so reckless.

Oh Trav, if you think Bush is doing such a good job at maintaining power, check out the post in POLITICS about the bombing that went off in the hotel…in Iraq...haha your little Bushy is great.

laughing aobut the bombing in here too? you seem to relish these attacks as some way to prop up your infantlie arguments. Bush is not doing a bad job, you want him to do a bad job, big diffference. you are so partisan you actually laugh at the deaths of innocent civilians killed by murderous thugs, then turn around and try to somehow say it was bushs fault. why do younever blame the fucking terrorists? what is you major malfunction overdose?

I’m laughing only because you see…it’s a little thing called the only way to deal with not going into insanity with this president is to laugh it off. These attacks are horrid, I’m laughing that you think Bush is doing a good job at keeping peace…when this happens.

You say I should care about people’s lives…but then flaunt around by saying my life is “worthless” or that it’s OK for Bush to use victims of September 11th in his AD’s on TV? Wow…you seem to think one thing, and then flaunt another..

:confused: :confused:

dont try and turn this around on me man, you are the one laughing about a bombing in iraq in more than one post. its sad to see someone so wrapped up in politics they are blinded to reality.

I was not laughing at the attack...I was laughing that you think BUsh is doing a good job at keeping the peace...if you read my words correctly. Honestly, learn to read, your taking things out of context...your a little boy Trev and you are just trying to shift this away from President Bush's sad mistake.

dude, I didnt say bush was doing a good job until after your post where you laughed at the bombing. dont try that stupid shit with me again

I laughed at the bombing? REALLY? I did?

"What has Bush done since September 11th to help America? Or the world? hahaha"

Is what I said, that is not laughing at the attacks but at Bush. Don't even try and spin it, because that is not what I said.

It's great how you can spin this, but then you say my life is worthless? Wow...you are so funny! You get mad at me for laughing, not at human life, but at Bush. Then say I'm laughing at a bombing? When I'm not? Don't try and make me look bad, because I have never laughed at human life, unlike you.

:bike:

You know what im laughing at? Im laughing that Travh even cares what the child thinks. I find that hillarious. Ignore her Travh, she is only trying to goad you into an arguement anyway.

Originally posted by Vilepagan

When you talk about reaping rewards what kind of reward do you mean? Im speaking mostly of political gain our country could have by making Iraq a better country to live in. Idealistic im sure, but i think that it could go a long way to mending political burnt bridges. Not to mention that when we do go back to trying to garner political favor, it would be from a position of strength and not weakness.

HaVok...your funny!;)

Originally posted by HaVoK
Im speaking mostly of political gain our country could have by making Iraq a better country to live in. Idealistic im sure, but i think that it could go a long way to mending political burnt bridges. Not to mention that when we do go back to trying to garner political favor, it would be from a position of strength and not weakness.

I see your point...I think it's hard for Americans to see it from the Iraqi point of view, and I'm not saying I can, but I think that we Americans believe that everyone in the world would want to be just like us if they could. We are the model everyone should follow. I can understand why someone from Iraq, or anywhere else, might want to preserve their own culture and heritage without surrendering it to our ideal.

wow pagan, you actually understand someone wanting to preserve their heritage and culture without surrendering to your ideal? could have fooled me. ;)