Students of history may recall Bismarck's quote:
“The whole of the Balkans is not worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier.”
Should the US pull out of Iraq before the situation is stabilized, it will not be because of any sense of hubris or respect. It will be because:
“I don’t like them sons of bitches over there — any of ’em.”
The US is trying to change the face of the middle east, to bring democracy to a region that heretofore has known only tyrany. We're condemned by the Sunni's, the Shia's, the Iranians, the Saudi's, and our own media. Our attempt to bring democracy to the middle east is described as imperialism. All we see on TV is death and destruction and images of Muslims denouncing the US.

What is the result of all this? A growing resentment of Muslims in general and a sense that bringing democracy to Muslims is not worth the loss of any US soldiers. Or, as one man said,
“I don’t like them sons of bitches over there — any of ’em.”

So, if you get the early withdrawl you want, enjoy it. Savor it. But don't think is signifies increased respect for other cultures or opinions. It doesn't. It signifies that the American people have decided to write off the middle east. They have decided that the entire middle east is not worth the bones of one US marine.

Check out this article that, no doubt, makes this argument better than me:
http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson042807.html

I still believe the war can be won, but we must convince American voters it is worth it. Otherwise we'll pull out early and chaos will ensue.

"I still believe the war can be won, but we must convince American voters it is worth it."

Too late. You should have used the truth instead of lies, in committing thousands of GIs, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to dying for this murky cause. Because of the neoconservatives' original dishonesty, the entire enterprise was a doomed strategy from the word "go".

Army Lt. Gen. William Odom (Ret.) (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070428/ap_on_go_co/democrats_iraq;_ylt=Aink_LMygqTMFAFj4WVX1uTMWM0F):

"I hope the president seizes this moment for a basic change in course and signs the bill Congress has sent him," Odom said, delivering the Democrats' weekly radio address.

Odom, an outspoken critic of the war who served as the Army's top intelligence officer and headed the National Security Agency during the Reagan administration, delivered the address at the request of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. He said he has never been a Democrat or a Republican.

The general accused Bush of squandering U.S. lives and helping Iran and al-Qaida when he invaded Iraq.

"The challenge we face today is not how to win in Iraq; it is how to recover from a strategic mistake: invading Iraq in the first place," he said. "The president has let (the Iraq war) proceed on automatic pilot, making no corrections in the face of accumulating evidence that his strategy is failing and cannot be rescued. He lets the United States fly further and further into trouble, squandering its influence, money and blood, facilitating the gains of our enemies."

Odom said he doesn't favor congressional involvement in the execution of foreign and military policy, but argued that Bush had been derelict in his responsibilities. This week Congress passed an Iraq war spending bill that would require Bush to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq on Oct. 1.

No white blood is worth spilling in that region!

The US is trying to change the face of the middle east, . . . and . . . All we see on TV is death and destruction and images of Muslims denouncing the US.

i say fuck 'em, let the bastards rot.

most muslims have never heard of americas involvement with japan, and how we turned it into a worl class economy.

the ones that DO know about it refuse to acknowledge it.

let 'em have their religion driven government, women wrapped in burlap, and let 'em stone each other.

Even the bigots are jumping ship- Dubya's reckless joyride is finally over.

who are the bigots that are jumping ship?

In Post 4 you displayed a gaping ignorance of modern Mideastern societies, a bigoted disregard for the welfare of other human beings, and dejected resignation over the America's campaign in Iraq. At the height of Bush 43's popularity, bigots were often his most prominent fans.

In Post 4 you displayed a gaping ignorance of modern Mideastern societies,
CRIMINALS in Afghanistan will face Taliban-style punishments including amputations and stonings as part of the interim government's drive to keep down crime, the chief justice said yesterday.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$MFHMNLIAAEMY1QFIQMFSFF4AVCBQ 0IV0?xml=/news/2002/01/25/wtal325.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/01/25/ixnewstop.html&_requestid=264461


a bigoted disregard for the welfare of other human beings,
i will not kiss the ass that slaps me. if that makes me a bigot then so be it.
and dejected resignation over the America's campaign in Iraq.
let's even give 'em a shitload of AK=47s.
At the height of Bush 43's popularity, bigots were often his most prominent fans.
i agree with alot of what bush tried to do. if that makes me a bigot then so be it.

Yeah, yeah...

Over the side, Ratty. We're clearing the decks.

i say fuck 'em, let the bastards rot.

most muslims have never heard of americas involvement with japan, and how we turned it into a worl class economy.

the ones that DO know about it refuse to acknowledge it.

let 'em have their religion driven government, women wrapped in burlap, and let 'em stone each other.

You can't understand, can you? Arabs piss on being a world class economy, their "values" are somewhat differently placed.

Fundies if not run but greatly affect American governments on different levels, women are stuffed with Prozac and wrapped in selfishness; yeah, killing with gun and poisoin injections are thousands light years away from stoning :) Civilizaaaaation.

to change the face of the middle east, to bring democracy to a region that heretofore has known only tyrany.
You'd better be concerned with bringing democracy to the states, what you have is just a joke, hollow decoration, you are as powerless as an Arab peasant in desert, even though, I presume, you are somewhat well off. When slaves guard themselves (mentally, including) - that's the worst tyranny.

Dix: stoning for adultery is on a moral par with execution for murder?

What an unusual moral construction you have there, Granny.

You can't understand, can you?
yes, i can
Arabs piss on being a world class economy, their "values" are somewhat differently placed.


and what "values" might that be?

yes, i can

and what "values" might that be?

Since I doubt that you really want to delve in the depths of the Arab "values", suffice to say that they are not Westernlike.

Dix: stoning for adultery is on a moral par with execution for murder?

What an unusual moral construction you have there, Granny.

According to the Bible, yes, adultery is punishable by stoning. Sometimes, it's a good thing that the Christians are the biggest moral relativists world've seen :)


However, death by stoning as a punishment for adultery is rather private (communal) initiative, not a state law. Honestly, I haven't heard about one in a while outside of Pakistan, the country which is not known for large Arab population.
So, privately speaking, Westerners don't kill for adultery (in the most humanely possible way beacons of civilization can find, of course)?

dixonmassey: "Since I doubt that you really want to delve in the depths of the Arab "values", suffice to say that they are not Westernlike."

And since I've spent considerable time living among Arabs, I can inform you that Arab values are entirely comparable to Western ones: Arabs have, on the whole, the same hopes, dreams, likes, and dislikes as Americans do. Misunderstandings arise from ignorantly assuming otherwise.

Dixonmassey: "since I doubt that you really want to delve in the depths of the Arab "values", suffice to say that they are not Westernlike."

Since I've spent considerable time living among Arabs, I can inform you that Arab values are entirely comparable to Western ones: Arabs have, on the whole, the same hopes, dreams, likes, and dislikes as Americans do. Misunderstandings arise from ignorantly assuming otherwise.

I greatly doubt that, you must have lived among westernized ones. There are 2 millions or so of those in states. However, traditionally, arab way of life (values included) is not the same as American one. Things don't turn around profit so much there, arab societies are not atomized yet, family and social ties are not destroyed or weakened greatly yet. The western poison slowly eats away those differences, here you are correct.

I lived in a remote part of Yemen as a kid, before there were highways. I wasn't among "westernized" Arabs there, but it was obvious that they weren't different from me or my American family in terms of basic values. I've also lived in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, and traveled throughout the region. Profit and financial security is just as important to native Arabs as it is to fully-assimilated Americans. The values you seem to consider a "western" franchise have been evolving in parallel with much older traditions. You need to get out more.

I greatly doubt that, you must have lived among westernized ones. There are 2 millions or so of those in states. However, traditionally arab way of life (values included) are not the same as American. Things don't turn around profit so much there, arab societies are not atomized yet, family and social ties are not destroyed or weakened greatly yet. The western poison slowly eats away those differences, here you are correct.

I believe mr. waters does have a point.

In this post-9/11 era it is acceptable to the American masses to compare Arab and Islamic people as the anti-thesis of the West and the Western culture, yet to do this is to pray on the ignorance of populace.

This is our biggest problem, we have a huge problem with PR. Thanks hypewaters for trying to correct the great amount of damage done against our people. I am just sad that not everyone can see this.

May I ask mr. dixon if you are familiar with any Arab or Muslim people in your personal life. I hope we might be able to have a friendly conversation.

I lived in a remote part of Yemen as a kid, before there were highways. I wasn't among "westernized" Arabs there, but it was obvious that they weren't different from me or my American family in terms of basic values. I've also lived in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, and traveled throughout the region. Profit and financial security is just as important to native Arabs as it is to fully-assimilated Americans. The values you seem to consider a "western" franchise have been evolving in parallel with much older traditions. You need to get out more.

It could be as important (one got to live somehow), but one thing is "important" and another "to turn around". There - it's important, here it's "turn around" even if it's not that important anymore. Yeah, I greatly doubt that Arabs charge their grown children rent, or do they?

I believe mr. waters does have a point.

In this post-9/11 era it is acceptable to the American masses to compare Arab and Islamic people as the anti-thesis of the West and the Western culture, yet to do this is to pray on the ignorance of populace.

This is our biggest problem, we have a huge problem with PR. Thanks hypewaters for trying to correct the great amount of damage done against our people. I am just sad that not everyone can see this.

May I ask mr. dixon if you are familiar with any Arab or Muslim people in your personal life. I hope we might be able to have a friendly conversation.

Sure, I know (knew) a dozen westernized (even christianized) arabs, I do admit they are just generic as we are (except religion in some cases and stronger family ties). However, to claim that Arab "values" are the same as american is little bit too much. Yeah, we live in the unification age of consumerism, but it's not uniform yet.

"It could be as important (one got to live somehow), but one thing is "important" and another "to turn around". There - it's important, here it's "turn around" even if it's not that important anymore. Yeah, I greatly doubt that Arabs charge their grown children rent, or do they?"

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your meaning, dixonmassey. Would you please say it another way?

"we live in the unification age of consumerism"

Many, including Americans I know, are moving past that.

To make it clear, my friend, what values exactly are we discussing?

I believe that Arab and Muslim people have alot in common with American people, especially universal believes of peace, compassion, brotherhood, and love for freedom.

Also, there have been Christians living in Arabia for centuries, Muslims and Christians get along well in the Middle East.

I've read a book about Detroit before and shortly after Americans took it over from French. The way of life of these two WESTERN people was strikingly different. French - relaxed, not in a hurry, live and let live (Indians), profit is important but up to the point, less economically "productive". American - business is above all, everything and everybody is the mere resourse to make $, everything in a way of making $ should be removed (Indians), etc., etc.,

Those were similar civilizationwise, religionwise people. You, on the other hand, claim that no differences in a way of life and values exists between people of different religions, different state of societary development (more traditional Arab, and more atomized civil societies of the West), different economical principles (it's still, if not deadly sin, but something not to be proud about, to charge an interest on a loan in Muslim countries). I greatly doubt that Arab families in Yemen anxiously await the moment when their child will hit 18 to push him out of a house (or charge rent), buy an RV and enjoy what is left of life. Are there retirement (nursing) homes (communities) in Yemen? Is there social security, medicare, etc.? If not, how do they live without? The place of women is also the same across the pond? I could continue, but significant differences do exist despite ongoing unification into the global amorphous mass of consuming wage-slaves and less fortunate.

The US and UK's meddling in Iraq reminds me of the parable, "Take the log out of your own eye, before attempting to remove the speck in your neighbour's eye."

Exctly, tablariddim

And dixonmassey, you're obviously confusing consumerism with values. Once you look beneath superficialities, you'll understand. Can a "primitive" Yemeni enjoy the increasingly-elusive "American dream?" Of course. Can a whitebread American enjoy life in a vanishing, remote, Yemen? I did.

I don't mean to single you out when I say that you share a dangerous arrogance with many Americans, who assume that our consumer society is invulnerable, and that it somehow validates our "American values" as unique and superior. This is a dangerous illusion.

Just as when Native Americans were feeling secure about the unchanging nature of their societies at the coming of the Europeans, new winds of change are blowing now. The global footing that American affluence was built upon over a half-century ago is shifting fast. Some are seeking to mislead us into believing our misfortunes are the work of foreign scapegoats.

You'll understand events much better if you lose the misguided notion that Arabs or Muslims have values so alien to our own. I'm here to tell you, as are any Arabs whom you can get to know personally, that the concept that "they" think differently than you is a vicious lie expressly designed to trick you into betraying the values we all share.

asadlfkja;dlfa a;lsdfjlkdjfls AFJELSKDJE

Exactly what do you expect such a holocaust would accomplish for the killers, Lord Sithis?

I wonder how much napalm is needed to turn iraq and particullarly Iran TO GLASS

Lord Shitis, that is a good question.

Fuck America!!!

Hahaha

Thanks, Ghost, you have clearly expressed what would be the unanimous sentiment of the world, if Lord Sik-Us' sick fantasy was carried out. An identical response will surely result in the event of an endless counterinsurgency, that ultimately can only inspire all remaining subjects of the occupation to become insurgents, right down to the last man, woman, or child still breathing atop "our" oil reserves.

I wonder how much napalm is needed to turn iraq and particullarly Iran TO GLASS

There is a problem with that.

Napalm can reach a burning temperature of 900-1,300°C °C. That's the old stuff used in Korea and such.

A glass furnace for glassblowing operates at 1400-1600 °C.
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/SaiLee.shtml
Hence no amount of napalm will turn iraq or particularly Iran into Glass.

However, super-napalm burns at 1,500-2,000°C. That's more like it.
http://www.vietnamese-american.org/b2.html

However, burning an area with napalm is not the same as heating the inside of a furnace. Sand is transducing the heat and so if the air. The maximum temperature will therefore not be maintained for very long at the boundary where sand meets air.

Also note that you made several spelling errors. Please return to your nearest elementary school for re-education.

I'm sure he'd much rather a trip to a North Korean gulag. I hear the re-education is second to none. Of course, it would be a mind opening cultural experience and I'm sure it might even change his world view :)

The US is trying to change the face of the middle east, to bring democracy to a region that heretofore has known only tyrany. We're condemned by the Sunni's, the Shia's, the Iranians, the Saudi's, and our own media. Our attempt to bring democracy to the middle east is described as imperialism. All we see on TV is death and destruction and images of Muslims denouncing the US.

What is the result of all this? A growing resentment of Muslims in general and a sense that bringing democracy to Muslims is not worth the loss of any US soldiers.

You and I disagree on a lot of things, but I agree with this post except some of the above quoted text.

The reason why democracy will not succeed in the Middle East is the people don't want it.

That's the point of a democracy, is it not? You can't impose or force democracy on a people that don't want it. The people have to want it themselves. When they want it, they will go to the ends of the earth to fight for it (like the American colonies did and like in Georgia's Rose Revolution).

It is one reason why America's attempt to have a democracy in Iraq was doomed to fail from the start, barring a miracle.

In the long run, Iraq will be a democracy, but first it needs to shake off the religious schism between the Sunnis and Shias. That rift is completely dragging down almost every aspect of Iraqi society, including the (oil) economy, domestic security, services, revenue transfers, etc... . Until they can peacefully sit down with each other and have rational discussions, we shouldn't even bring up the idea of democracy.

The reason why democracy will not succeed in the Middle East is the people don't want it.

What evidence or logical reasoning do you have to support that assertion? Is it just because there's a few radical Iraqi individuals who are blowing other Iraqis up?

Baron Max

Hey, i dont mean Genocide, i just am saying that a sudden evacuation of all the citizens of Iraq or Iran could seriously reduce the number of places terrorists are. they would be in ghost towns, after we move the people of Iraq and Iran out, then find the terrorists and the leaders, who would probably come out more. maybe i should have specialized. Im not saying line them up and shoot them. But if we evacuated the population in a few days, that would shorten the time to find terrorists and topple Iran's leader, who is sending terrorists armor peircing weapons.

O and thanks for pointing out the spelling errors. I do support the war, but not total Genocide. If the people are out of the country, and the terrorists are in the country, would destruction of the terrorist held areas be bad if we just rebuild it for the people later?

"after we move the people of Iraq and Iran out, then find the terrorists and the leaders"

Please be serious. If you have even rudimentary perception, you know that people don't appreciate forced relocations, and you know that refugee camps are desperate places and breeding-grounds for terrorism.

"Iran's leader... is sending terrorists armor peircing weapons."

What specifically are you talking about?

"If the people are out of the country, and the terrorists are in the country, would destruction of the terrorist held areas be bad if we just rebuild it for the people later?"

OK it seems that either you aren't being sincere, or you have a lot to learn about the world, Lord Sithis.

Hey, i dont mean Genocide, i just am saying that a sudden evacuation of all the citizens of Iraq or Iran could seriously reduce the number of places terrorists are. they would be in ghost towns, after we move the people of Iraq and Iran out, then find the terrorists and the leaders, who would probably come out more. maybe i should have specialized. Im not saying line them up and shoot them. But if we evacuated the population in a few days, that would shorten the time to find terrorists and topple Iran's leader, who is sending terrorists armor peircing weapons.

The best way to solve such a complex problem is to first change the American attitude. Not all problems need to be solved through force. What we see in Iraq is the particular result of a policy which is based on force and military methods.

Why don't we just accept peace with the Islamic world, eliminate the reasons for the rage of those fighting America. Let's end occupation, and let's stop acting like Islam is a devil religion. Perhaps if you treat the people of Iraq and Iran as human beings, they won't be so pissed off with America.

Equitable relations have worked before, and it's completely reasonable to expect that they will work again.

Why don't we just accept peace with the Islamic world, eliminate the reasons for the rage of those fighting America. Let's end occupation, and let's stop acting like Islam is a devil religion. Perhaps if you treat the people of Iraq and Iran as human beings, they won't be so pissed off with America.
DiamondHearts, haven't seen you in a while. Welcome back.

Anyway, I'd say we're treating the people of Iraq like people already. We're spending billions of dollars and thousands of our soldier's lives to protect them from the extreemists.

If we pull out prematurely, it will mean we no longer consider Iraqis people. It will also mean we consider Islam a devil religion unworthy of our efforts. The people of the middle east "not ready" for self government.

That's the point I'm trying to make. We are there because we are treating the Iraqis as people. After decades of cynical deals with despots, Bush decided the time was right to begin treating the Iraqis like people. He believed, perhaps wrongly, that the Iraqi people would embrace democracy if given the chance.

Madanthonywayne: "We're spending billions of dollars and thousands of our soldier's lives to protect [Iraqis] from the extreemists."

And we are failing stupendously.

"If we pull out prematurely, it will mean we no longer consider Iraqis people."

That's not logical. Our presence has been causing Iraqis misery.

"It will also mean we consider Islam a devil religion unworthy of our efforts."

Also illogical. If you honestly respect another religion there is no reason to make "efforts" upon it.

"The people of the middle east "not ready" for self government."

That's nothing more than a sick reprise of the White Man's Burden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Man's_Burden).

"We are there because we are treating the Iraqis as people."

We are not treating them as we would like to be treated, in ignorance of the basic principle that we all want to be treated fairly, and to be allowed to carry out our own affairs. We have violated Iraqi sovereignty in ways that Americans would certainly tolerate no more peacefully.

"[Bush] believed, perhaps wrongly, that the Iraqi people would embrace democracy if given the chance."

Then he far exceeded his authority. Bush 43 was not elected or Constitutionally empowered to install democracies abroad by force.

Students of history may recall Bismarck's quote:
“The whole of the Balkans is not worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier.”
Should the US pull out of Iraq before the situation is stabilized, it will not be because of any sense of hubris or respect. It will be because:

The US is trying to change the face of the middle east, to bring democracy to a region that heretofore has known only tyrany. We're condemned by the Sunni's, the Shia's, the Iranians, the Saudi's, and our own media. Our attempt to bring democracy to the middle east is described as imperialism. All we see on TV is death and destruction and images of Muslims denouncing the US.

What is the result of all this? A growing resentment of Muslims in general and a sense that bringing democracy to Muslims is not worth the loss of any US soldiers. Or, as one man said,


So, if you get the early withdrawl you want, enjoy it. Savor it. But don't think is signifies increased respect for other cultures or opinions. It doesn't. It signifies that the American people have decided to write off the middle east. They have decided that the entire middle east is not worth the bones of one US marine.

Check out this article that, no doubt, makes this argument better than me:
http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson042807.html

I still believe the war can be won, but we must convince American voters it is worth it. Otherwise we'll pull out early and chaos will ensue.

The bones of a single arab is not worth the whole of America.

On another forum, a member is sharing his father's memories of combat in Vietnam. It is strikingly relevant. Some excerpts:

More than once I got asked “Why are we here, what’s the war about?”

In the beginning, I said what I had been told, and what I believed—that we were fighting communism, and helping the Vietnamese to control their own destiny; to ensure free elections, the democratic process, and to keep the north from taking over the south. After being in the war for a few months, those stock answers made me puke. The next few times the new kids asked me the same question, I answered. “I don’t know, maybe just to put in our time and go home,” because I really didn’t know.....

I gave the word for the M-60’s to open up. They started off on the trees as we got ready to sprint. No return fire yet. Suddenly there were hordes of people running toward us from out of the trees. We dove back behind the dike.

“Cease fire! Cease fire!” I shrieked at the top of my lungs. They weren’t soldiers; they were women and children.

“I see people rushing you; do you want the Cobras on them?” I could hear Duke-Three questioning over the radio.

“No, No, Goddamn it, they’re civilians!” I yelled. I could see the two Cobras overhead queuing up to roll in again.

The machine gunners had quit the moment I yelled cease fire. They were good men; the best. Sixty terrorized Vietnamese came running out of that tree square straight toward us. If we had taken any incoming fire at all, I’m sure my guys would have dropped them all, but they didn’t. They held back and nobody fired.

Duke-Three couldn’t tell what was going on in all the confusion. He demanded a report. I was surrounded by screaming crying Vietnamese. Many of them were wounded. They had been hiding in their homes and gotten shot up by the cobras. Now they were bleeding all over us. My men put aside their weapons and began tending to the wounded.

“Duke-Three, we’ve got a lot of wounded friendlies down here. Can you get any aid teams out from Tracy?” I questioned.

“Roger Barron Two-Six, I’ll get what I can.” He answered.

What a crock of shit! All these shot up Vietnamese for what? Were they going to like us any better for this screw up? I left three men at the dike to help with the wounded and we headed for the tree square. I hoped to God that we would find some VC; something, anything to justify the destruction that the Cobras had brought down on these people. We walked slowly, hoping to get shot at. Hoping that the US Army didn’t destroy people’s homes and terrorize them for no reason at all.

I was sure that my men hadn’t shot any of these people but we were part of everything that had happened, and because of that I felt responsible. We moved into the little village looking for vindication. Fires raged everywhere. Dead livestock littered the area. These people’s whole lives were going up in smoke courtesy of Uncle Sam. Rounding a corner I could see three bodies out in the open in the village square. They wore US uniforms; part of the snatch team no doubt. Moving over to the first one, I rolled him over with the toe of my boot. A familiar face stared lifelessly at me. It was Yung! He had three holes in his chest marked by patches of dried blood. I cursed the war. It was all bullshit—Yung’s favorite word. So much for Yung’s one afternoon with the recon platoon. My little “brother-in-law” was dead.

We found no VC in the village. Whatever happened went down long before we got there. We loaded the dead onto choppers and flew silently back to Tracy.

My contempt for the war was growing by leaps and bounds. My original premise that we were in Vietnam to help a valiant population fight off the advances of sinister communism had been shelved long ago. When Ty had dropped me off at Travis, I was armed with statistics—that 85% of the eligible voters in Vietnam had voted in the last “free” election and that it was our duty as good Americans to insure that the democratic process was allowed to flourish. How embarrassing. After several months of being there, I realized that the Vietnamese people wouldn’t recognize “democracy” if it bit them in the ass. What’s more, they couldn’t care less. The people did understand the village elder and the local boss, however, and that’s all they needed at that point in their evolution. I couldn’t fathom why we as Americans had to shove democracy down their throats or kill them. We feel the national urge to reshape backward nations with hundreds of years of history in our own democratic image. The war, for the Vietnamese, was a power struggle between two different factions, who cares what labels they used; for control of the country. It was Vietnamese fighting Vietnamese in a civil war. Kind of like if some foreign powers cut California in to two states by running a line across the state at Salinas , and all the northern Californians went down to southern California to fight for control of the whole state. I knew it was a simplistic explanation, but it was better than “Saving the country for democracy”.
http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2448795&perpage=10&pagenumber=1

Anyway, I'd say we're treating the people of Iraq like people already. We're spending billions of dollars and thousands of our soldier's lives to protect them from the extreemists.

And what a good job the coalition forces have done so far.

The extremists came into Iraq after it was invaded. You have different factions now attempting to gain power, in a vacuum left by, yes, us, and you now have outside forces flooding into the country to attempt to stop the Western tide from instilling Western beliefs and politics in a country that is simply not ready for it.

Did the US and her allies ask the people of Iraq if they wanted a democracy as it is currently being imposed before you invaded? No. They were not given a choice. They still aren't being given a choice. Yes Saddam was a sadistic bastard and yes he had to go. But you went about it the wrong way. The extremists came into Iraq after you invaded. You reap what you sow.

If we pull out prematurely, it will mean we no longer consider Iraqis people.
You don't anyway.

But you're right. If you pull out now, you will help that country enter a bigger hell hole than it is in currently. You need to finish what you started and you need to do it as quickly as possible. You should never have invaded in the first place and your continual presence there will ensure that the extremists keep flooding in. Building a wall will only further enrage the Iraqis who will see it as further intrusion into their lives by you.

You were asked by the Iraqi Government and the people of Iraq to stop building the wall, but you ignored their wishes. It is their country, not yours. Such blatant actions will cause further extremists to come forth. Iraqis who feel disenfranchised by the US presence and now the wall will turn to extremism. You have created a situation where ordinary Iraqis will turn to extremists as a means to combat you. Your so called attempt to build up a democratic nation has failed.

It will also mean we consider Islam a devil religion unworthy of our efforts.
You did before you invaded. What's your point?

The people of the middle east "not ready" for self government.
Knowing this, why did you invade Iraq in the bid to build up a democratic government in the first place?

I would imagine they are able to self-govern under their own terms and ways. It is a shame they were never given the opportunity to do so.

We are there because we are treating the Iraqis as people.
Please tell me you are being sarcastic.

Because I doubt the people living in Iraq would agree with you at the moment.

After decades of cynical deals with despots, Bush decided the time was right to begin treating the Iraqis like people.
Yes, after decades of cynical deals with despots (by the US no less), they get you. Yes. Talk about falling out of the pan and into the fire.

He believed, perhaps wrongly, that the Iraqi people would embrace democracy if given the chance.
You cannot embrace any form of government, not even democracy, when you are living in an occupied country. You are the occupiers. As I said, you need to finish what you started and get out as soon as possible. Setting a date for withdrawal is a start. It might make you work a bit faster to ensure the poor souls in that country can then move forward.

After decades of cynical deals with despots, Bush decided the time was right to begin treating the Iraqis like people. He believed, perhaps wrongly, that the Iraqi people would embrace democracy if given the chance.

Why didn't Bush and his administration listen to the Muslims in America and the Middle East before engaging in this war? This war was unilateral, and we have been against this war since the beginning, yet I doubt the Americans went in iaq for the sake of the people. I guess that is also the reason for the economic sanctions banning much needed food, water, and medicine, and constant bombing of Iraq during the 90's.

The premise that the Bush administration cares for the Iraqi people is not factual at all. Why the very proof is that Bush, and his republican supporters are the first to condemn Islam is an evil religion. They denigrate our culture and religion, why would I believe they care about us. The people of the Middle East are tired of American hegemony. This is the reason why you have so much opposition in Iraq. Not to mention the hundreds of Abu Ghraib jails in Iraq which continue to operate with Bush's love for the Iraqis.

If you love the Iraqi people, then leave Iraq and bring in Islamic countries to solve this mess. This administration has caused too much problems in the Muslim world already, its time America left for good.

Students of history may recall Bismarck's quote:
“The whole of the Balkans is not worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier.”
Should the US pull out of Iraq before the situation is stabilized, it will not be because of any sense of hubris or respect. It will be because:

The US is trying to change the face of the middle east, to bring democracy to a region that heretofore has known only tyrany. We're condemned by the Sunni's, the Shia's, the Iranians, the Saudi's, and our own media. Our attempt to bring democracy to the middle east is described as imperialism. All we see on TV is death and destruction and images of Muslims denouncing the US.

What is the result of all this? A growing resentment of Muslims in general and a sense that bringing democracy to Muslims is not worth the loss of any US soldiers. Or, as one man said,


So, if you get the early withdrawl you want, enjoy it. Savor it. But don't think is signifies increased respect for other cultures or opinions. It doesn't. It signifies that the American people have decided to write off the middle east. They have decided that the entire middle east is not worth the bones of one US marine.

Check out this article that, no doubt, makes this argument better than me:
http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson042807.html

I still believe the war can be won, but we must convince American voters it is worth it. Otherwise we'll pull out early and chaos will ensue.

Hahaha,
Can you say sour grapes?

But you're right. If you pull out now, you will help that country enter a bigger hell hole than it is in currently. You need to finish what you started and you need to do it as quickly as possible. As I said, you need to finish what you started and get out as soon as possible. Setting a date for withdrawal is a start. It might make you work a bit faster to ensure the poor souls in that country can then move forward.
We are actually in agreement, partially. Regardless of the wisdom of going in, we are morally obligated to set things right before we leave. Leaving too soon will leave a power vacuum and result in genocide and turn the area into a safe haven for terrorists.

But (and it's a big but), I don't see how you can suggest we set a date for withdrawl with a straight face. How the fuck can you do that?

Would we call up the Islamofascists and say,
Yes, is this Islamofascist HQ? OK. Good. Well, we're going to be leaving on October 31 this year and we'd really appreciate it if you guys would all come out of hiding right away so we could kill you before then. What? You're not going to do that? You're going to marshall your forces for an all out attack as soon as we leave? Well, that's not very sporting now, is it?

You can't fight a war on a time table. It's over when it's over. We gradually train the Iraqis to defend themselves and remove US forces from areas under their control. Knowing full well that we will occasionally have to go back in and help out.

How what I just described is imperialism or "hating Islam", I fail to understand. Saying "We're leaving on October 31, go fuck yourself after that" is showing distain for Iraqis. Saying we will stay until the job is done is showing respect.

What evidence or logical reasoning do you have to support that assertion? Is it just because there's a few radical Iraqi individuals who are blowing other Iraqis up?

Baron Max

OK. Give me evidence when a Middle Eastern country succeeding in implementing and maintaining a stable democracy after a larger democratic country invaded it and intended to implement it.

If you can, I'll retract what I said.

Otherwise, the evidence is overwhelmingly on my argument, because there isn't any well-functioning democracy in the Middle East that fits that description. You might try to point to Turkey, but Turkey became democratic after revolutions against the Ottoman Empire. Lebanon is probably another example people might try to point to, but that isn't a well-functioning democracy, as south is completely Hezbollah-controlled. The central Lebanese-government still exercises little control over these areas.

Syria, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Yemen, Oman, Bahrain, Pakistan, Iran, etc... none of these are democracies. And Afghanistan? LOL.

Iran was once a democracy, but the Americans and British disposed of the Mossadegh government and replaced it with an autocratic shah.

Israel is well functioning democracy in the middle east.



Pwnt

We are actually in agreement, partially. Regardless of the wisdom of going in, we are morally obligated to set things right before we leave. Leaving too soon will leave a power vacuum and result in genocide and turn the area into a safe haven for terrorists.

I disagree with this statement. If you believe that the US is on a civilizing mission, then yes, this assertion would make sense, however I firmly believe, as do most Iraqis and Muslims, that America is the cause of the divide of the Sunnis and the Shiat to began with. It is when you favor one group while completely condemning the other that this kind of civil war starts.


Would we call up the Islamofascists and say,
Yes, is this Islamofascist HQ? OK. Good. Well, we're going to be leaving on October 31 this year and we'd really appreciate it if you guys would all come out of hiding right away so we could kill you before then. What? You're not going to do that? You're going to marshall your forces for an all out attack as soon as we leave? Well, that's not very sporting now, is it?

This statement brings up a variety of false assertions on your part. Those fighting against America in Iraq are not Islamofascists, fundamentalists, or whatever you may want to call them. These are small Iraqi groups who believe they are fighting for the defense of their people. Even the term Islamofascist, is a very degrading xenophobic term which means absolutely nothing. You must understand that in a society which is in turmoil, various groups arise, many which are exploiting the situation of lawlessness in Iraq, however not all these groups can be are necessarily evil. There are still people in Iraq with pride in their country who believe fighting oppression is a noble endeavor. Another point, Muslims generally don't like it when people use the term Islamofascist, as this term is used alot by Islam-haters and those who continue to pray on the ignorance of the masses such as some evangelical organizations in America.

Whether you agree or not, the situation from an Iraqi persepective unfolds like this. Saddam is a brutal dictator supported by the West. When the oil-rich province of Kuwait breaks away from Iraq, the US attacks Iraq. Sanctions and continous bombing in the 90s leave Iraqi socitey in shambles with a million children dead of malnutrition. In 2003, the US military fabricates the myth of WMDs in Iraq to finish off the once proud nation, which has been weakened from the most powerful Arab nation to begging for relief from sanctions. The US military plays the different Iraqi parties against each other igniting civil war. Then the US uses this situation to maintain their right to stay on Iraqi land and privatise their oil fields to American companies.


How what I just described is imperialism or "hating Islam", I fail to understand. Saying "We're leaving on October 31, go fuck yourself after that" is showing distain for Iraqis. Saying we will stay until the job is done is showing respect.

Saying the Entire Middle East is not worth a single American sounds pretty rascist to me. If you really feel that way, America needs to leave the Middle East forever, that would make both our people happy. I'm sure those innocent people in the Middle East rotting in American dungeons from Guantanamo, to Abu Gharib to Bagram would be better off. I mean we have 12 year-olds and 14-year-olds in Guantanamo, where is the humanity?

Israel is well functioning democracy in the middle east.



Pwnt

Maybe when Israel gets rid of its Jewish-only roads and villages, recognizes the right of its Arab neighbors to live in peace, and dismantles its settlements on Palestinian land we can discuss how it as a democracy.

Maybe when Israel gets rid of its Jewish-only roads and villages, recognizes the right of its Arab neighbors to live in peace, and dismantles its settlements on Palestinian land we can discuss how it as a democracy.

Which Jewish-only villages? What proof do you have of this? And roads? Are you referring to the interruption of traffic for the reason of searching out suicide bombers? And which settlements should they demolish? All settlements, everywhere? And how democratic are its neighbours? - since some people here feel the need to express things in relativistic terms.

If you love the Iraqi people, then leave Iraq and bring in Islamic countries to solve this mess.

Like...Iran? Heh.

Which Jewish-only villages? What proof do you have of this? And roads? Are you referring to the interruption of traffic for the reason of searching out suicide bombers? And which settlements should they demolish? All settlements, everywhere? And how democratic are its neighbours? - since some people here feel the need to express things in relativistic terms.

Ermm Geoff, most of the settlements in Isreal are Jewish only. And no, traffic is not interrupted to just search for suicide bombers. Traffic is closed to all Palestinians if someone from any of the settlements wish to drive down said roads.

It is common knowledge and policy.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?lang=e&id=ENGMDE150932006

Thanks, Bells. I'll take a look at the doc. However, I disagree quite fundamentally with DH that the situation would be peaceful in any event, as the historical perspective indicates. I also disagree that the reason for the economic collapse of Palestine is Israel: Israel is responding to the Intifada. Travel restrictions only came into play therein. In that light, how unreasonable are they? I also wonder at the language DH uses: "get rid of", a phrase he employs above with respect to Jewish habitations, has a certain connotation.

: Israel is responding to the Intifada. Travel restrictions only came into play therein. In that light, how unreasonable are they? .

dear geoff,

I hope all is well.

i was wondering what the resistance/intifada over the least 40 years was in response too.

~~~~~~~~~
take it ez
zak

dear geoff,

I hope all is well.

i was wondering what the resistance/intifada over the least 40 years was in response too.

~~~~~~~~~
take it ez
zak
Hey Zak,
Are those noisy palestinians and arabs still yelling anti-Israeli slogans with fog horns out there at oxford circus???

Hey Zak,
Are those noisy palestinians and arabs still yelling anti-Israeli slogans with fog horns out there at oxford circus???


heey:confused:
You mean today vega ?

heey:confused:
You mean today vega ?
It's been awhile since I was in London.
Well almost everytime I head out to central London I hear a horde of them protesting!. I assume they still at it?

It's been awhile since I was in London.
Well almost everytime I head out to central London I hear a horde of them protesting!. I assume they still at it?

I was actuallty passing through oxford circus on Wednesday last week and there was not any protests.

At least protesting is better than their usual counter-productive tactics

~~~~~
Take it ez
zak

dear geoff,

I hope all is well.

i was wondering what the resistance/intifada over the least 40 years was in response too.

~~~~~~~~~
take it ez
zak

In reponse to West Bank intrusions (among other reasons valid and invalid), which were in response to repeated invasions (as per the desire for a buffer zone for a country approximately 15 km wide) which were in response to the Jewish inhabitants not acting like proper dhimmis which was in response to not wanting to be ruthlessly and viciously exploited at the hands of any interested party from the segment of the population considered "protectors" over the "dhimmis". Sort of like the victims of gangsterism fighting back against the gangsters. This doesn't mean that all individuals exploited them, but rather that the political-social system (and local Arab leaders) so allowed and encouraged it, which is sufficiently perverse and sick in and of itself.

And how was your weekend?

in response to the Jewish inhabitants not acting like proper dhimmis which was in response to not wanting to be ruthlessly and viciously exploited at the hands of any interested party from the segment of the population considered "protectors" over the "dhimmis". Sort of like the victims of gangsterism fighting back against the gangsters. This doesn't mean that all individuals exploited them, but rather that the political-social system (and local Arab leaders) so allowed and encouraged it, which is sufficiently perverse and sick in and of itself.

and I thought most of the Jews came to live in Israel after 1948!!

Surely you cant tell me that Israel has done evrything for the good
And how was your weekend?

My weekend was pretty shite actually MR geoff, doing month end and shit like that, however my company's turnover is up about 300% on this time last year so shit aint that bad

Take care
Zak

The bones of any dead soldier are only worth something to worms and vultures.

I disagree with this statement. If you believe that the US is on a civilizing mission, then yes, this assertion would make senseWell, there's the crux of our disagreement.

This statement brings up a variety of false assertions on your part. Those fighting against America in Iraq are not Islamofascists, fundamentalists, or whatever you may want to call them. These are small Iraqi groups who believe they are fighting for the defense of their people. Even the term Islamofascist, is a very degrading xenophobic term which means absolutely nothing. You must understand that in a society which is in turmoil, various groups arise, many which are exploiting the situation of lawlessness in Iraq, however not all these groups can be are necessarily evil. There are still people in Iraq with pride in their country who believe fighting oppression is a noble endeavor. Another point, Muslims generally don't like it when people use the term Islamofascist, as this term is used alot by Islam-haters and those who continue to pray on the ignorance of the masses such as some evangelical organizations in America.
I figured that term would piss you off. But I still say if you compare life under the Taliban or any Islamic extreemist type government, it's not too different from life in a fascist country.
Whether you agree or not, the situation from an Iraqi persepective unfolds like this. Saddam is a brutal dictator supported by the West. When the oil-rich province of Kuwait breaks away from Iraq, the US attacks Iraq. Sanctions and continous bombing in the 90s leave Iraqi socitey in shambles with a million children dead of malnutrition. In 2003, the US military fabricates the myth of WMDs in Iraq to finish off the once proud nation, which has been weakened from the most powerful Arab nation to begging for relief from sanctions. The US military plays the different Iraqi parties against each other igniting civil war. Then the US uses this situation to maintain their right to stay on Iraqi land and privatise their oil fields to American companies.
Ok. Remember way back when when Bush had his "mission accomplished" photo op? He'd have loved to pull the troops out right after that.

American troops are only still there because the insurgents keep raising hell. You want the occupation to end? Stop fighting. That's all it would take.

You want to have a say in your government? VOTE. Iraq is now a democracy, if the government can stand, that is.

But the Islamofascists don't want Democracy. They want an extreemist state under Sharia law.
Saying the Entire Middle East is not worth a single American sounds pretty rascist to me. If you really feel that way, America needs to leave the Middle East forever, that would make both our people happy. We'd love to, if Islamic extreemists would quit raising hell all over the world. If Iraq ends badly, I foresee a much larger conflict between Islam and the West in the near future. A war on the scale of WW2, perhaps worse.

The extreemists will be emboldened by their victory in Iraq and use the money from oil to finance ever increasing terror attacks until nukes are finally used. This will unleash a war of aniliation, nukes all over the place. A war of biblical proportions such as that described in revelations may be on the horizon.

Those are the stakes. So should the US leave in humiliation from Iraq, enjoy the "victory" while it lasts. Worse will soon follow. Much worse.

Above are assumptions from madantonywayne too foul and ludicrous to leave stinking up and staining our dialogues here:

1. "the crux": The United States is "civilizing" the Mideast through military intervention.

The results have proven to be the opposite: Breakdown of infrastructure and social order, and the empowerment of radical, fundamentalist reactionism. What's worse, the anger over the unjustified destruction of Iraq is not confined to Iraq. The White Man's Burden was widely recognized as a political disease long ago. A return to such policy can only breed a manipulable rage that is righteous in its kernel, and hence more enduring than any profiteering enterprise.

2. Armageddon: "If Iraq ends badly, I foresee a much larger conflict... on the scale of WW2, perhaps worse... The extreemists will be emboldened by their victory in Iraq and use the money from oil to finance ever increasing terror attacks until nukes are finally used. This will unleash a war of aniliation, nukes all over the place. A war of biblical proportions such as that described in revelations may be on the horizon. Worse will soon follow. Much worse."

That is jumping to such exaggerated conclusions that the only way I can explain this fiery rhetoric is that madanthonywayne is engaging in baseless fear-mongering, motivated by his refusal to admit that the American experiment in Iraq has already definitively failed. Fortunately, such cries of "fire!" in a crowded theater are now falling out of favor with the American public, because we have already been witness to our own deception at the dishonest hands of leading neoconservative fear-mongers over this very issue. Madanthonywayne is in denial, and apparently would willingly sacrifice the entire world to stay that way. For as long as we can point out the irrationality of his (and his far-right mentors') shrieking, we can put our nation's affairs right again calmly, and wisely forgo both the White Man's Burden, and Armageddon.

To tell you the honest truth about my feelings regarding "Democracy" in America:

I did a bit of 'country shopping' when George W. Bush was re-elected in 2004.

Since my freedoms here are dwindling by the day and we are led ever further down the path of certain destruction by our incompetent, tyrannical leaders I thought perhaps I might find a country in this world which might offer me some vestige of the Constitutional rights I was told I was entitled to as a child...

But alas, coming from this nation (the US) no country in the world is likely to take me. :(

Who can blame them?

Israel is well functioning democracy in the middle east.

Pwnt

Israel was a negotiated country by the UN. It was not invaded by a larger democratic country to specifically set up a democratic country.

Above are assumptions from madantonywayne too foul and ludicrous to leave stinking up and staining our dialogues here:

That is jumping to such exaggerated conclusions that the only way I can explain this fiery rhetoric is that madanthonywayne is engaging in baseless fear-mongering, motivated by his refusal to admit that the American experiment in Iraq has already definitively failed.

Wow. Foul, ludicrous,and fiery. The trifecta!

All I can say is, should we get the early withdrawl you favor, we'll see. If it does come to pass, I sincerely hope you're correct and our leaving results in peace and love in the middle east and all over the world.

Though I would predict genocide soon after our withdrawl, followed by Iraq becoming a safe haven for terrorists, followed by mushroom clouds all over the place.

"I would predict genocide soon after our withdrawl, followed by Iraq becoming a safe haven for terrorists, followed by mushroom clouds all over the place."

Let's revisit this thread in a year then, when an effectively unconditional US withdrawal will likely be in full swing. I'm willing to be patient with your basic geopolitical education.

For now, can you address my answers to your question, or is that too much of a challenge for you?

"I would predict genocide soon after our withdrawl, followed by Iraq becoming a safe haven for terrorists, followed by mushroom clouds all over the place."

Let's revisit this thread in a year then, when an effectively unconditional US withdrawal will likely be in full swing.You got it.

It's too bad there's no "time capsule" type function that would make a thread automatically pop up again on a certain date.

Don't worry. I have a good memory. So: Please consider and respond to my answers to your question- Or have you been only superficially trolling?

All I can say is, should we get the early withdrawl you favor, we'll see. If it does come to pass, I sincerely hope you're correct and our leaving results in peace and love in the middle east and all over the world.

Though I would predict genocide soon after our withdrawl, followed by Iraq becoming a safe haven for terrorists, followed by mushroom clouds all over the place.

My friend, I think it is rather unfair to confine the war in Iraq to a black and white choice between withdrawing, or keeping US troops dying in Iraq. The war in Iraq represents a massive failure on part of the Bush Administration. The WMD propaganda was a lie. The myth that Iraqis hated Saddam more than they hated America was a lie. No suprise since the US and its Western allies put horrible sanctions on Iraq in the 90s, along with bombing the infastructure continously.

Contrary to the popular belief held in America, there is no central organization which is carrying out the insurgency. It is a collective will of the Iraqi populace to be rid of US imperialism.

The only solution to an illegal unilateral war is a multilateral solution which is legal. I say again, we need to consult the people who are effected most by an unstable Iraq, the Arabs and the Persians, and at large the rest of the Muslim world.

I, personally, am against the war for reasons of my own but the title is entirely a matter of personal opinion...I'm supposing that the day we pull out is the day Bush leaves office.

Very well said, DiamondHearts. You have encapsulated key understanding that Americans must accept in order to find a way out of this mess in Iraq. There has been considerable progress in American collective awareness in that direction, since the height of our national post-9-11 tantrum. I'm not expecting it to be so sudden, but I agree with you [a-5] that we will turn a corner when what's left of the Bush cabinet is entirely removed from office.

I trust that moderate Arabs and Muslims will one day recognize that the American public fell into the same cycle of revenge and over-reaction that oppressed and distressed people anywhere are not immune from. We unfortunately were at perhaps our greatest moment of national weakness, poised with a gun to Iraq's head, with a leadership screaming at us to "do it". We weren't left with much time to think about a situation most Americans scarcely knew anything about, before we were mobilized to invade a nation that did not acually threaten us, in spite of the lies we were bombarded with.

For those American still suffering under the spell of hubris (a spell insisting that America can find a military solution to a moral failure) it is no doubt a painful process of realization. But I'm reserving most of my pity for the belligerent thugs of American discourse until this shameful period is over. Right now, patriotic Americans have a duty to stand up to the stubborn belligerent rhetoric that is sowing the seeds of ouur destruction. When we've turned this around, I'l be ready to make nice. I do realize that America's failure has been an all-too-human one, a moral failing that many of our adversaries are also susceptible to. For now in America, we're in the midst of a war of ideas that I believe is about nothing less than the survival of our free society, that is threatened by ignorant hotheads who will wreck this great nation if we allow them to.

If they want to be monarchies, let them. If they want a Shah (which I'm pretty sure Iranians don't) then let them.

Our freedom does NOT depend on everyone else in the known universe having a government exactly like ours.

...and if we are leading by example, they will more likely become Imperialistic dictatorships.

Don't worry. I have a good memory. So: Please consider and respond to my answers to your question- Or have you been only superficially trolling?
Oh, I'm not trolling at all. I believe everything I've said. What, specifically, do you predict would be the result of an early withdrawl v/s a continued presence?

My favored policy would be to train Iraqis and pull US forces out of areas as Iraqis assume control. Leaving when that process is done, however long that takes.

Am I correct in assuming your favored policy is to simply pull out asap and leave the Iraqis to their own devices?

So, we train inherently partisan Iraqis in combat, give them weapons, and when we leave they join one side or the other's death squads. This is already happening, we are training our own killers.

First, thanks for making sincere discussion.

madanthonywayne: "What, specifically, do you predict would be the result of an early withdrawl"

A mitigation of the direct products of our invasion and occupation: Misery, hatred and violence.

" v/s a continued presence?"

A continuing, compounding response identical to what has already manifested. The story of this intervention is a clear demonstration of cause and effect: American disruption has left Iraq in critical condition. Without removing the incompatibility (US occupation) Iraq will surely die.

"My favored policy would be to train Iraqis and pull US forces out of areas as Iraqis assume control."

That has proven unworkable (as spidergoat has pointed out) because Iraqi forces are not really our friends, and do not (in the present context) harbor loyalties trumping sectarianism. Americans will be violently evicted first, and the shape of Iraq will be violently worked out second. It's the brutal truth, and we should have all seen it coming.

"Am I correct in assuming your favored policy is to simply pull out asap and leave the Iraqis to their own devices?"

That's what we will ultimately be forced to do, no matter what we may profess or desire. The most productive thing we can do right now is to engage Iraq's neighbors in cooperatively working (independently of any public US kiss-of-death) out all possible security/containment arrangements.

It's not a pretty picture, but there it is.

and I thought most of the Jews came to live in Israel after 1948!!

Oy. Please don't be disingenuous. You're full well aware of the fact of dhimmitude prior to then, and of long date. Moreover, you seem to be dropping back to a demographic excuse: that is, that there were only a few Jews there, so oppressing them was not such a big deal. Surely you wouldn't excuse the even more vicious oppression of Jewish people in islamic countries after 1948 on the same demographic grounds?

Surely you cant tell me that Israel has done evrything for the good

No; but neither all for the bad, or even mostly, in my opinion. The Jewish immigrants to the region have been on the defensive from the beginning, all owing to the initial mistreatment of same on the basis of political islamic expression.

My weekend was pretty shite actually MR geoff, doing month end and shit like that, however my company's turnover is up about 300% on this time last year so shit aint that bad

Sorry to hear that. =(

I figured that term would piss you off. But I still say if you compare life under the Taliban or any Islamic extreemist type government, it's not too different from life in a fascist country.

Quite right. It is complete doubletalk to first say how wonderful such countries are - Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan - and then simultaneously blame the Yanks for their evil despotism. It's one thing or the other.

First, thanks for making sincere discussion.

madanthonywayne: "What, specifically, do you predict would be the result of an early withdrawl"

A mitigation of the direct products of our invasion and occupation: Misery, hatred and violence.

These would more correctly be termed the indirect products of the invasion and occupation.

Why is that, GeoffP?

Because they weren't the overt goals of the invasion, lest ye think it's the Yanks planting IEDs everywhere.

The products/results do not follow from the unrealistic goals of a mistake. It was entirely predictable, and was indeed predicted by many, that Iraqis would bitterly resist an American societal makeover.

The products/results do not follow from the unrealistic goals of a mistake.

I agree - the products followed directly from the unrealistic and ridiculous behaviour of Iraqi and foreign terrorists. No one is making people plant IEDs, save perhaps their superiors.

It was entirely predictable, and was indeed predicted by many, that Iraqis would bitterly resist an American societal makeover.

So then is Bush a fool or a monster? Either he was very stupid or deliberately evil. You can't have it both ways, you know. Frankly, the Americans' capacity for Middle Eastern intelligence has been lacking in some areas; namely, societal ones.

"So then is Bush a fool or a monster? Either he was very stupid or deliberately evil. You can't have it both ways, you know. "

False dilemma: It's stupid to be evil, and further there's no evidence that GW Bush is a mastermind of anything.

"Frankly, the Americans' capacity for Middle Eastern intelligence has been lacking in some areas; namely, societal ones."

Agreed.

Yes you can, he is evil and stupid.

"So then is Bush a fool or a monster? Either he was very stupid or deliberately evil. You can't have it both ways, you know. "

False dilemma: It's stupid to be evil, and further there's no evidence that GW Bush is a mastermind of anything.

Clearly it isn't stupid to be evil! I'm evil, but not stupid. I'm sure you could find some people to disagree with the latter, but those are the actually stupid ones.

Anyway, your proposition was that the outcome of the invasion was known and therefore eeeeevil. Now you claim that Bush is not a mastermind, which implies stupidity. So was the product (misery etc) that you claim is "direct" then incidental or the objective of the invasion? Whether or not one agrees with the invasion, your position strikes me as - shall we say - hyperbolous.

Yes you can, he is evil and stupid.

Possibly; but hype is saying that the misery was the direct product of the invasion, which I disagree with.

"So was the product (misery etc) that you claim is "direct" then incidental or the objective of the invasion? "

The product and the objectives were irreconcilable, because the objectives were unrealistic. The objectives were summarized by the Project for the New American Century, and were likely more specifically laid out in Cheney's National Energy Policy Development Group before the invasion. The actual result of that specific unrealistic policy has been the unprecedented hell that Iraq is now going through, and the blowback Americans will face in the future.

By "unprecedented hell" I presume you mean the terrorism. Are you saying then that this was the objective of He-Who-Stalks-Behind-The-Oval-Office (Cheney)? Wouldn't chaos also make it hard to exploit Iraq? Unless Chaney (in addition to shooting ppl in the face) also literally feeds off human misery, like a demon or lawyer.

"By "unprecedented hell" I presume you mean the terrorism."
No, I mean the totality of Iraq's present agony.

"Are you saying then that this was the objective of He-Who-Stalks-Behind-The-Oval-Office (Cheney)? "
Close, but not quite: Cheney was the inside-man for interests separate from those of the American People and our representative government. Among these interests were major petroleum corporations and the Israeli lobby.

"Wouldn't chaos also make it hard to exploit Iraq? "
Obviously. They were not anticipating such chaos.

"Unless Chaney (in addition to shooting ppl in the face) also literally feeds off human misery, like a demon or lawyer."
Cheney is no demon, only an influence-peddler who will likely be prosecuted for high crimes if he lives long enough.

The chaos was unexpected, hell the war didn't exactly go their to plan did it? Wasn't it supposed to cost $300Million? With Iraqi oil paying for most of the post war reconstruction?

The Neocon dream of a pro US (and Pro Israel) flourishing democracy was simply a fantasy. As for Cheny he's made his millions, thats not exactly a secret.

I pray that Americans have learned that their administration has really screwed up their country and completely devastated the Middle East. I really hope that at last Americans, particular those who supported Bush, learn that we people of the Middle East desire only peace and their administration has destroyed the infrastructure and massacred the people of four sovereign Muslim nations Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, and Somalia. And yet, they ask, why are people in the Middle East angry? it should be obvious by now. It's US foreign policy in the Middle East which is making more enemies and losing much needed friends.

I still believe the war can be won,

As long as some people can make a fortune from the suffering and death of certain others wars will be nothing more than genocide without any useful purpose for peace-loving people. Wars are genocide disguised as failed diplomacy.

but we must convince American voters it is worth it.

Most Americans flatly refuse to go to war and want no part of it. Those impostors occupying the leadership positions in America resort to domestic mass murder to get the genocide/war rolling. By the use of terror these impostors incite the masses into a bloody rage that makes them want to lash out blindly at anything their overloard/masters tell them to strike with deadly force.


Otherwise we'll pull out early and chaos will ensue.

Chaos is all mankind has ever known because of these genocides they call wars. When the wars/genocides are ended for good the chaotic societies these impostors thrive in will go away.

As long as some people can make a fortune from the suffering and death of certain others wars will be nothing more than genocide without any useful purpose for peace-loving people. Wars are genocide disguised as failed diplomacy.



Most Americans flatly refuse to go to war and want no part of it. Those impostors occupying the leadership positions in America resort to domestic mass murder to get the genocide/war rolling. By the use of terror these impostors incite the masses into a bloody rage that makes them want to lash out blindly at anything their overloard/masters tell them to strike with deadly force.




Chaos is all mankind has ever known because of these genocides they call wars. When the wars/genocides are ended for good the chaotic societies these impostors thrive in will go away.Well said.

"By "unprecedented hell" I presume you mean the terrorism."
No, I mean the totality of Iraq's present agony.

Oh, God, I knew you were going to say that. "Oh, the horror, the inhumanity!" Can you please specify what you mean, Hindenburg Lad? And how - exactly - will the American withdrawal help or expedite the situation? Exactly how. I'm very curious to hear this one.

"Are you saying then that this was the objective of He-Who-Stalks-Behind-The-Oval-Office (Cheney)? "
Close, but not quite: Cheney was the inside-man for interests separate from those of the American People and our representative government. Among these interests were major petroleum corporations and the Israeli lobby.

And it behooves the former at least to have suffering and chaos instead of stability and efficient exploitation? You realize, of course, that the terrorist ruckus in Iraq right now has resulted in less stability and the withdrawal of American troops, which means less protection for the oil production sites, which amusingly enough are already threatened with terrorism? Is this all part of the master plan?

"Wouldn't chaos also make it hard to exploit Iraq? "
Obviously. They were not anticipating such chaos.

But you said that the chaos was the direct result of the occupation (and not the indirect result of the occupation, but the direct result of the terrorists deciding that a 4:1 civilian:soldier fatality distribution was "deen enough for us"), which does suggest intentionality. That's the only way you could ascribe it directly back to the Yanks. Otherwise, its the direct result of the terrorism, and the indirect result of the invasion.

"Unless Chaney (in addition to shooting ppl in the face) also literally feeds off human misery, like a demon or lawyer."
Cheney is no demon, only an influence-peddler who will likely be prosecuted for high crimes if he lives long enough.

Let us hope. But let us also not delude ourselves.

Oh, God, I knew you were going to say that. "Oh, the horror, the inhumanity!" Can you please specify what you mean, Hindenburg Lad? And how - exactly - will the American withdrawal help or expedite the situation? Exactly how. I'm very curious to hear this one.


You can flip that particular coin: how does continuation of American presence help or expedite the situation?

Moreover, you seem to be dropping back to a demographic excuse: that is, that there were only a few Jews there, so oppressing them was not such a big deal. Surely you wouldn't excuse the even more vicious oppression of Jewish people in islamic countries after 1948 on the same demographic grounds?

Dear Geoff,

Hows it oign and thank you for your response?

i did not say that at all, anyway the British rule that area before 1948 and called it the british mandate for Palestine or something similar


No; but neither all for the bad, or even mostly, in my opinion.

You are right Geoff, not one country does all bad acts and not one country can do all good.


The Jewish immigrants to the region have been on the defensive from the beginning, all owing to the initial mistreatment of same on the basis of political islamic expression.


Yes the poor Jewish immigrants have escaped the slaughter and racism against them from Christian Europe.



Sorry to hear that. =(

Same shit different day i suppose Geoff, but nontheless we will keep our chins up.

GeoffP:“By "unprecedented hell" I presume you mean the terrorism."

No, I mean the totality of Iraq's present agony.

”Oh, God, I knew you were going to say that. "Oh, the horror, the inhumanity!" Can you please specify what you mean, Hindenburg Lad? "

You are being disgustingly flippant about the horrors that Iraqis are enduring, and I suspect that it is because you are exhibiting a conditioned dehumanization of the victims. There is literally a horrific inhumanity taking place in Iraq right now, and the American leaders who concocted this failed occupation are directly responsible for initiating this downward spiral into depravity.

"And how - exactly - will the American withdrawal help or expedite the situation?"

As I have been patiently, clearly, and repetitively explaining to you, the leading direct unintended consequence of the experiment has been the breakdown of Iraqi society. Iraq continues to be wracked by the agony of a societal seizure, that was directly induced by an intervention that has been an incompatible systemic insult. When accountable people carry out an experiment, and the experiment goes catastrophically wrong, accountable people halt the experiment. Irresponsible and insincere people, desperately avoiding inquiries inevitably leading to questions of accountability, often make ridiculous statements of denial, and dance childishly around the subject.

"Are you saying then that this was the objective of He-Who-Stalks-Behind-The-Oval-Office (Cheney)? "

Close, but not quite: Cheney was the inside-man for interests separate from those of the American People and our representative government. Among these interests were major petroleum corporations and the Israeli lobby.

"And it behooves the former at least to have suffering and chaos instead of stability and efficient exploitation?"

No again. Unintended consequences remain the aspect of this disaster that you refuse to acknowledge. Events have clearly shown that unintended consequences are exactly what has become of the Iraq experiment. You have given no reasonable basis for your denial of this reality. I am sensitive to the fact that this denial is essential to your stubborn spin: You are expressing personal investment in the neoconservative project in Iraq. That's fine, but I won't leave you to make facile obfuscations of the basic facts.

"You realize, of course, that the terrorist ruckus in Iraq right now has resulted in less stability and the withdrawal of American troops, which means less protection for the oil production sites, which amusingly enough are already threatened with terrorism? Is this all part of the master plan?"

Because that's such a muddled statement, I'll first offer my estimation of what you are trying to say there: That American troops have been a stabilizing force in Iraq, and beneficial to American energy interests.

If I'm not misunderstanding you, then you are just repeating your counterpoint again and again without any rational support. Your repetitious insistence that foreign intervention in Iraq, instigated deceptively by the Bush Wite House, is not the leading political irritant in Iraq is a baseless and ridiculous argument. The failure in Iraq is in fact a grave threat to American interests, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future.

"Wouldn't chaos also make it hard to exploit Iraq?"

(Round and round we go) Obviously. Again, the architects of this war were not anticipating such chaos. They admitted as much in their early pronouncements of their expectations during the mobilization and invasion. I don't think I need to round up the quotes for you, because they are well established in the public record and conscience now. I doubt that you have managed personally to fully repress these memories.

"But you said that the chaos was the direct result of the occupation (and not the indirect result of the occupation"

Snap out of it, Geoff. Even if this issue is disturbing for you, you've got to face reality if you want to be taken seriously here.

"...the direct result of the terrorists deciding that a 4:1 civilian:soldier fatality distribution was "deen enough for us"), which does suggest intentionality."

Blah, blah, blah. Also untrue: The fatality rate among Iraqis, relative to US fatalities, is much higher, and the deaths are by no means confined to "terrorists".

"That's the only way you could ascribe it directly back to the Yanks."

Horse pucky. There is direct correlation between American troops in Iraq and the violence there.

"Otherwise, its the direct result of the terrorism, and the indirect result of the invasion."

That's just more labored twisting of the facts, repeated so that you can again trot out your trusty buzzword "terrorism", now a tired zionist and American right-wing-extremist way of summarily dismissing all opposition, and all innocent victims- a codeword dismissing all victims as undeserving of any quarter or compassion. You are employing tactics of dehumanization that would do a Goebbels proud.

"Unless Chaney (in addition to shooting ppl in the face) also literally feeds off human misery, like a demon or lawyer."

Cheney is no demon, only an influence-peddler who will likely be prosecuted for high crimes if he lives long enough.

"Let us hope. But let us also not delude ourselves."

Oh, bullshit. You can't dumb this down to some inane plot line like a fantasy adventure of 2-dimensional heroes, villains, and foes. This isn't a game of Cowboys and Indians. Try confronting the issues, Geoff. The silly game of denial you're playing is just lame.

You can flip that particular coin: how does continuation of American presence help or expedite the situation?

Well, it could. They could rebuild. But almost the entirety of the budget is going to defense, no? I don't know if it's too much to ask that people not set off IEDs and the like, but you have to admit that if there weren't any terrorism there might be more rebuilding. So: the continued American presence, in the present situation, doesn't help. But it could. But the choice of whether it does or not really isn't in the hands of the Yanks.

Anyway, my position is still that if the majority of the people want them gone in six months or one year (however one cares to balance the interpretation of that poll) then they should go anyway. That's the very essence of the democracy they wish to install.

What I keep thinking back to is I do not recall us taking any polls, or even asking for much input on the governments we put in place in post Nazi Germany, or Imperial Japan....or really in asking their opinion on the matter of when we should vacate....I think given the current success in both of those nations, perhaps that was a good choice........oh but of course this is different, after all there were no zealots in Nazi Germany, or Imperial Japan.....right?

Dear Geoff,

Hows it oign and thank you for your response?

i did not say that at all, anyway the British rule that area before 1948 and called it the british mandate for Palestine or something similar

As you like, but it sounded quite different.

You are right Geoff, not one country does all bad acts and not one country can do all good.

Except East Korea.

Yes the poor Jewish immigrants have escaped the slaughter and racism against them from Christian Europe.

Well, now we're back on the invective. You seem to have issue with anti-semitism in Europe as being a rationale for the creation of a Jewish state. But, verily I tell you, there was antisemitism everywhere. I think the entire affair is quite unfortunate; yet there is a point to be made that they did need a state of their own. They escaped the slaughter and racism of Christian Europe - only to encounter the racism, slaughter and slow, grinding abasement and genocide of the Middle East. The former does not somehow excuse the latter.

What I keep thinking back to is I do not recall us taking any polls, or even asking for much input on the governments we put in place in post Nazi Germany, or Imperial Japan....or really in asking their opinion on the matter of when we should vacate....I think given the current success in both of those nations, perhaps that was a good choice........oh but of course this is different, after all there were no zealots in Nazi Germany, or Imperial Japan.....right?
Are you suggesting you're better off simply imposing your way on Iraq regardless? Mmmmm...

Are you suggesting you're better off simply imposing your way on Iraq regardless?

Originally yes, now...it's too late.....

had we gone in with a larger number of troops, presented them with a new government and sat on that country until it started working then yes..we would have been better off....

I think the last 5,000 years of post wars and successful rebuilding of nations supports that point.

At this point doing so would be however seen as a new war with the Iraqi people, as opposed to the last regime....so now it would be a bad idea......

You only get one shot at doing it right......

I don't recall Germans or Japanese initially being fond of American occupation either.....but they're two of the most successful economies in the world right now.....it's hard to argue us imposing a sane form of ogovernment on them like it or not was a bad call.

At what point did we "win the hearts and minds" of Nazi party member's or Imperial cult zealots in Japan? Do you honestly beleive the zealots in Iraq match the zeal of Imperial Japanese still found hold up in caves years later?

We didn't concern ourselves with winning over hearts and minds in those "barbaric days" we simply said this is how it will be, and if you don't like it pick up your rifle and fight........but of course now we're wiser and know that "violence doesn't solve anything"......:P

Hello geoff,

thank you for your response.




Except East Korea.
.

We ll yes i forgot about east Korea.



Well, now we're back on the invective. You seem to have issue with anti-semitism in Europe as being a rationale for the creation of a Jewish state. But, verily I tell you, there was antisemitism everywhere. I think the entire affair is quite unfortunate; yet there is a point to be made that they did need a state of their own. They escaped the slaughter and racism of Christian Europe - only to encounter the racism, slaughter and slow, grinding abasement and genocide of the Middle East. The former does not somehow excuse the latter.

What makes you think i have any invective issue, i was just reminding you that the Christian europeans caused more sluaghter than the Arabs did of the jews. As i am always quick to poitn out Leaders do shit things to enhance their power and to feed that lust for power too.

but i thoguht the major jewish population increases in Palestine (british Mandated Transjoradan) were from about 1940's onwards or maybe a bit before. therefore the majority settled in israel after 1948 or when the british were in charge, so i dont get what you mean by escaping one slughter and heading into another by the arabs/muslims.

~~~~~~~~
taek it ez
zak

GeoffP:“By "unprecedented hell" I presume you mean the terrorism."

No, I mean the totality of Iraq's present agony.

”Oh, God, I knew you were going to say that. "Oh, the horror, the inhumanity!" Can you please specify what you mean, Hindenburg Lad? "

You are being disgustingly flippant about the horrors that Iraqis are enduring, and I suspect that it is because you are exhibiting a conditioned dehumanization of the victims. There is literally a horrific inhumanity taking place in Iraq right now, and the American leaders who concocted this failed occupation are directly responsible for initiating this downward spiral into depravity.

I'm not experiencing a conditioned dehumanization of anything. I'm simply trying to pry out of you a statement on the exact nature of the suffering of the people of Iraq and how the American departure will aid that. The main negative consequence of the Yank presence is terrorism, which apparently the Yanks invoke through their continued and obstinate presentation of themselves as targets, apparently. Now: exactly what other suffering are they responsible for and how will their leaving fix it? Will the roads reknit themselves when the last GI boot is lifted from the sacred soil of Iraq? Will the grace of Allah permit the re-establishment of electricity and water: for, doth he not control all things from the greatest to the smallest? What exactly will happen.

"And how - exactly - will the American withdrawal help or expedite the situation?"

As I have been patiently, clearly, and repetitively explaining to you, the leading direct unintended consequence of the experiment has been the breakdown of Iraqi society. Iraq continues to be wracked by the agony of a societal seizure, that was directly induced by an intervention that has been an incompatible systemic insult. When accountable people carry out an experiment, and the experiment goes catastrophically wrong, accountable people halt the experiment. Irresponsible and insincere people, desperately avoiding inquiries inevitably leading to questions of accountability, often make ridiculous statements of denial, and dance childishly around the subject.

Or, rather, fisk about the subject without providing a clear response to legitimate inquiry with which they'd assuredly rather not deal. Accountable people might well halt an experiment which goes wrong, but if the experiment is doomed to go even wronger once the PI walks out of the lab and flips the light off, then that strikes me as actually even more unaccountable. It's rather like an experiment where someone introduces a few dogs to a room, notices that they immmediately begin savaging one another, and then decides to bugger off to avoid any further suffering on their part. I think you would see that there's going to be suffering even if the researcher in question does leave, and irrespective of what's gone on previously.

"And it behooves the former at least to have suffering and chaos instead of stability and efficient exploitation?"

No again. Unintended consequences remain the aspect of this disaster that you refuse to acknowledge.

Wrong. I do acknowledge it. I merely place the blame evenly, on the appropriate parties for the appropriate reasons.

You have given no reasonable basis for your denial of this reality. I am sensitive to the fact that this denial is essential to your stubborn spin: You are expressing personal investment in the neoconservative project in Iraq.

LMAO - no, hypey, that's ridiculous. Rather, I am simply asking you what the consequences of an American withdrawal will be. This is as relentlessly impersonal as one can get. Tell me - and without falsehood if you can - which reality am I denying? Is it the big one everyone else lives in, or yours? On the contrary, it's you that has a staggering personal investment in this, while I couldn't really care less.

That's fine, but I won't leave you to make facile obfuscations of the basic facts.

LMAO again - which ones?

I'll first offer my estimation of what you are trying to say there: That American troops have been a stabilizing force in Iraq, and beneficial to American energy interests.

Oh, good Lord, man, not at all. That isn't my point in the slightest. The American presence in Iraq is not stabilizing at all. But what you childishly seem to be avoiding is that it's not them that chooses instability. It's hardly the American preference to be loosing men and materials fighting the latest round of idiots off the short bus from Damascus. But is there any other choice, when IEDs are going off everywhere? I might add that the insurgency's concern for the freedom and welfare of Iraqis is a bit mitigated by the horrendous civilian casualties they cause.

Your repetitious insistence that foreign intervention in Iraq, instigated deceptively by the Bush Wite House, is not the leading political irritant in Iraq is a baseless and ridiculous argument.

Yawn. No, hypey, that's not what I'm saying. It's funny; you almost seem to be proposing a sort of racism based on the idea that the terrorists don't have any range of self-control, or that they must, automaton-like, attack Americans on whatever grounds, as though they were unable to decide for themselves whether or not to commit to terrorism. You do realize that they could - and should - not to blow people and things up, but maybe even to help with the reconstruction? :eek: Imagine that: a proto-islamic-political supremacism not based on the suppression or destruction of the other.

"Wouldn't chaos also make it hard to exploit Iraq?"

(Round and round we go) Obviously. Again, the architects of this war were not anticipating such chaos. They admitted as much in their early pronouncements of their expectations during the mobilization and invasion. I don't think I need to round up the quotes for you, because they are well established in the public record and conscience now. I doubt that you have managed personally to fully repress these memories.

Yawn. I think I'd be more interested in your personal slanders if they were funny, I guess. Anyway: this does not place the blame on the Yanks, I'm sorry to have to tell you. They were not anticipating such chaos: and, categorically, they did not cause it directly. The direct parties are elsewhere - lest you think Americans are personally running around bombing things.

"...the direct result of the terrorists deciding that a 4:1 civilian:soldier fatality distribution was "deen enough for us"), which does suggest intentionality."

Blah, blah, blah. Also untrue: The fatality rate among Iraqis, relative to US fatalities, is much higher, and the deaths are by no means confined to "terrorists".

Amazing. You have missed the point entirely, because your political predisposition canalizes your focus to imagine that all your opponents must be "Johnny-USA" types, preaching body-bag superiority. Astounding. The ratio refers to the civilians, tiny, tiny brain: those civilians that the terrorists are trying to liberate into the Great Hereafter, apparently.

"That's the only way you could ascribe it directly back to the Yanks."

Horse pucky. There is direct correlation between American troops in Iraq and the violence there.

Because the Americans are the ones planting IEDs. The terrorists are merely mindless automatons, incapable of thought, but only response to stimuli, like primitive organisms. No?

"Let us hope. But let us also not delude ourselves."

Oh, bullshit. You can't dumb this down to some inane plot line like a fantasy adventure of 2-dimensional heroes, villains, and foes. This isn't a game of Cowboys and Indians. Try confronting the issues, Geoff. The silly game of denial you're playing is just lame.

I considered your complaints, and frankly it all boils down to this: there is no need for an insurgency, and no need for terrorism. A significant proportion of Iraqis (according to your own poll) want the Americans to leave, but a significant proportion want them to stay for at least a year. The Yanks could be rebuilding all this time, but instead they're forced to deal with terrorism. The terrorism itself engenders the suffering: you might think (and undoubtedly do) that the mere presence of American troops causes terrorism, but it doesn't. That decision is taken every day by the terrorists themselves. A majority of Iraqis wanted Saddam gone, and he is: there is and remains damage from the war that got rid of him, but terrorism is not going to help clean that up. You refuse to answer questions about how much more or less suffering is going to occur once the Yanks leave: frankly, it more seems like you'd be happier once the entire situation is under the radar, no matter what the immediate outcome. This is your choice, but let's be realistic about the facts.

We ll yes i forgot about east Korea.

On behalf of our Glorious Nation, I accept your apology.

What makes you think i have any invective issue, i was just reminding you that the Christian europeans caused more sluaghter than the Arabs did of the jews. As i am always quick to poitn out Leaders do shit things to enhance their power and to feed that lust for power too.

Well then, we agree on point of politics - and in that case specifically, the failure of separation of mosque and state. My issue is with the larger realm of islamic politics altogether - domestic and otherwise - much as my issue is with the concept of capitalism altogether.

therefore the majority settled in israel after 1948 or when the british were in charge, so i dont get what you mean by escaping one slughter and heading into another by the arabs/muslims

Well it's plain to see that when the majority moved in they rapidly would have become aware of the conflict from those Jews already there - and the latter had abundant reason to be alarmed at the goings-on towards them in islamic Palestine.

GeoffP: "The main negative consequence of the Yank presence is terrorism, which apparently the Yanks invoke through their continued and obstinate presentation of themselves as targets, apparently. Now: exactly what other suffering are they responsible for and how will their leaving fix it?"

Terrorism is an inadequate descriptor of the vicious cycle of violence now gripping Iraq. A civil war is grinding on without any possible chance for resolution, and it will continue thusly for so long as US forces (and their dwindling token allies) remain.

"Will the roads reknit themselves when the last GI boot is lifted from the sacred soil of Iraq? Will the grace of Allah permit the re-establishment of electricity and water: for, doth he not control all things from the greatest to the smallest? What exactly will happen."

The same thing that happens in any civil war: More killing. The difference will be that it will run its course, and the sectarian fighting may hopefully be contained by neighbor states. Basically, the USA does not have a legitimate mandate to decide the outcome of the Iraqi Civil War. Nor does the USA have the capability to halt it. We can't even effectively take sides with a viable party. We have become universally despised among Iraqi communities. Our favor is the kiss of death. All that we can now accomplish through American military efforts in Iraq is to prolong and compound the carnage.

"I think you would see that there's going to be suffering even if [occupation forces] leave, and irrespective of what's gone on previously."

That's right.

"I am simply asking you what the consequences of an American withdrawal will be."

Catharsis.

"Tell me - and without falsehood if you can - which reality am I denying?"

You are denying the reality that the false justifications for the intervention in Iraq eliminate all possibility that Iraqis will settle their future under US auspices. We have been revealed to be holding a corrupt moral mandate in Iraq, which is much worse than having no mandate at all. This removes all hope of popular support for our self-declared mandate. Popular support is essential and indispensible to the realization of our goals. Popular support for any American designs is gone, and it isn't coming back.

"it's not [the occupation force] that chooses instability. It's hardly the American preference to be loosing men and materials fighting the latest round of idiots off the short bus from Damascus. But is there any other choice, when IEDs are going off everywhere? I might add that the insurgency's concern for the freedom and welfare of Iraqis is a bit mitigated by the horrendous civilian casualties they cause."

American forces are in the middle of a fight that we recklessly precipitated. And still the fact remains that it is not our fight.

"you almost seem to be proposing a sort of racism based on the idea that the terrorists don't have any range of self-control, or that they must, automaton-like, attack Americans on whatever grounds, as though they were unable to decide for themselves whether or not to commit to terrorism. You do realize that they could - and should - not to blow people and things up, but maybe even to help with the reconstruction? Imagine that: a proto-islamic-political supremacism not based on the suppression or destruction of the other."

You are again lumping all Iraqi turmoil under the propagandistic label of "terrorism", in order to obscure the issues.

"this does not place the blame on the Yanks, I'm sorry to have to tell you. They were not anticipating such chaos: and, categorically, they did not cause it directly."

Bullshit. Without the invasion, this would not be happening. Lots of us saw it coming, and we warned the Bush cabinet before they pulled the trigger.

"The direct parties are elsewhere - lest you think Americans are personally running around bombing things."

As a matter of fact, we are, and it's not making us any friends.

"a significant proportion [of Iraqis] want [Americans] to stay for at least a year."

How significant a proportion? Sources please.

"You refuse to answer questions about how much more or less suffering is going to occur once the Yanks leave"

Less than if we stay, because the status quo is an extremely bloody stalemate.

"let's be realistic about the facts."

Yes, let's please do that.

Well, hype has cherry-picked his way through my points, and courtesy dictates I do the same.

GeoffP: "The main negative consequence of the Yank presence is terrorism, which apparently the Yanks invoke through their continued and obstinate presentation of themselves as targets, apparently. Now: exactly what other suffering are they responsible for and how will their leaving fix it?"

Terrorism is an inadequate descriptor of the vicious cycle of violence now gripping Iraq. A civil war is grinding on without any possible chance for resolution, and it will continue thusly for so long as US forces (and their dwindling token allies) remain.

After which, it will magically stop, precipitated by little elves.

"Will the roads reknit themselves when the last GI boot i