How can a president of a country ask with a straight face his congress for 87 billion dollars to reconstruct another rich oil producing country, while his country is in recession and the unemployment rate is record high.?? How can he do it with a straight face?

Cocaine can!

That money is not to "rebuild" Iraq alone. It is for the entire war. Since it may go for another 8 years, certainly much more will be needed.

That is the price of empire, the normal folk suffer so the upper classes benefit. It's funny for Americans to actually believe and keep a straight face that they are not imperialistic. The tax cuts who benefit whom? The rich, the expansionism of American power benefits whom? Corporations. Who losses? The conquered ppl, the normal American with increased terrorist threats. You actually believe that Bush cares about the "normal American" LMFAO, man common flores. Only in America, UK, Spain, Caliphs, Mongols, Rome, Hellenistic world,etc. This is not a unique feature in America only, America is a empire and like all empires it is destined to fail. The question is whether peacefully or not.

Well after rigging the election (thanks Jeb!) I don't think asking congress for cash will give the swindling fuck any sleepless nights.
Dee Cee

Americans have been brain washed to the point that a poll showed that 50% of the general public believes that Iraq was involved in the 911 attack (CBS news) . If they attacked America they deserve to die, be occupied, and forfeit all of their oil to American corporations. All of this is untrue of course, but.............

The dumbed down Amercan public will need to think about this situation for a few years before they realize that Johnny's education is being sacrificed for Iraqi oil.

http://www.buffalonews.com/opinion/tomtolescartoons.asp

Hey justice it's been a long while.

Well the American ppl have also forfeited JOBS for cheaper goods. Free trade of course is that very mechination that allows to this happen. What tells u how inept the US is in today's economic world just look at China. The Yuan is pegged to the US $ and thus making manufacturing jobs so cheap that it would be stupid for multi-nationals to leave the Ohio valley and go to the Perle Delta. Also it seems that the Southern US which is more anti-union is getting quite a bit of investment from Europe and Japan. Of course real wages are eventually going to have to go down. China already have about $900 billion worth of capitalization invested in her, and it's going up by $52 billion a year if not more! I find the stupid senators in the US who are crying wolf here, daring to say "unfair trade"! How about the massive argi-business tariffs, et all? And excuse me but isn't this capitalism? I am damned happy China is sucking everything. :)

And much of the rest of the world has been brainwashed to believe that we are bloodthirsty monsters who get our unholy power from the oil we suck from unsuspecting countries mixed with the blood of newborn babies. According to some we are insanely powerful pathetic berserker cowards could never stand up to anyone and yet go forth and ravage whole nations while in constant retreat.

Don't forget the billions Bush wants to flush down the AIDS-treatment toilet in Africa.

Originally posted by nico
Free trade of course is that very mechination that allows to this happen.

As is immigration.

Back to Europe, then, Whitey!

A cursory look at history shows that every time a nation gets the idea that it can build an Empire, it eventually and inevitably goes through a phase of drastic decline:

Spanish Empire - 1516 - 1714
British Empire - Began with defeat of Spanish Armada in 1588, ended with loss of India in 1948.
Japanese Empire - 1896 - 1945
Soviet Empire - 1917 - 1989
Germany - 1870 - 1945

There are probably more examples of lesser stature from history.

I submit that American Imperial ambitions grew from the ashes of the Civil War. I would also argue that the high-water mark of the American Empire came in the mid 1960s. Everything after that has been decline.

The question is - will there be a runaway collapse of our economic and military power, or can we gracefully step back from the brink and assume a "separate and equal station" among the "powers of the earth", as the Declaration of Independence puts it?

I don't see how we can avoid one of these two choices continue to try to dominate the planet.

My prediction?

American Empire 1876 - 2012.

Most of that money goes to the military to keep the troops there. About 20 billion or LESS goes to Iraq directly and that money goes to companies that are working there to rebuild Iraq. Some of those companies are American along with other countries from around the world. Would Americans rather fight the terrorists inside of America, I think not for the cost of that kind of fighting would be over 200 billion dollars per year or more!!Whatever the cost to stop the terrorists is going to be spent in order to insure freedom inside America as well as other countries. So no matter what you say you'll never stop the Republicans from spending as much as is needed to insure that America remains free and safe.

Te Jen:

America has a unique form of government that allows it to rebuild or reinvent itself if necessary. Although negative events happen at a much faster pace than in previous times, so we must be vigilant.

Cosmictraveler:

Why would you believe that terrorists will only attack us in Iraq? This nation is loaded with sleeper cells that have been here since the 1980's.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/10/31/193315.shtml

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cosmictraveler
About 20 billion or LESS goes to Iraq directly and that money goes to companies that are working there to rebuild Iraq. [B]

COMPANIES???????????? Hillburton and Cheney Gang??

[B]Some of those companies are American along with other countries from around the world.

Such as???? what other countries? what companies?




!!Whatever the cost to stop the terrorists is going to be spent in order to insure freedom inside America as well as other countries.

Who gives a Phuck about other countries?


So no matter what you say you'll never stop the Republicans from spending as much as is needed to insure that America remains free and safe.

LOL are you a republican official JOKER? Nice joke. I like it.

I'd say that if the heads of the terrorists are being decapitated over in the middle east then the sleeper cells anywhere won't know what to do as well as they should. It will take allot of time to reassemble like minds that were in charge of those cells I would say. The more they have a military over there , the less chance other countries will be terrorized. America is now terrorizing the terrorists that were once given free reigns to destroy whomever they wanted. Now the shoe is on the other foot and they are trying to hide.

How can a president of a country ask with a straight face his congress for 87 billion dollars to reconstruct another rich oil producing country, while his country is in recession and the unemployment rate is record high.?? How can he do it with a straight face?
Why would a government of a nation with 7,500 nuclear warheads budget $780 million to buy 12 more (http://www.msnbc.com/news/965843.asp?0dm=C16MO) ?

Lotsa questions out there but the answers are troubling...

Thanks for just re-enforcing my points on the "un-specialness" of the American empire. The US is going to last longer then 2012 simply because it has too. Why? Well I think that because the US is going to not dissolve like other empires prior. The US is truly in special circumstances in terms of the globalization effect. The US will cease to exist as other nations eventually will.

Cosmic:

Some of those companies are American along with other countries from around the world.

Care to share a link on that one please.

Would Americans rather fight the terrorists inside of America, I think not for the cost of that kind of fighting would be over 200 billion dollars per year or more!!

So u think Iraq is going to cost less then that number? LOL, and you see the war in Iraq will INCREASE the threat of terrorism against the US, so really your theory is useless. I think that combating terrorism within one's state and leaving the innocent world alone is the smart thing to do.

So no matter what you say you'll never stop the Republicans from spending as much as is needed to insure that America remains free and safe.

Of course which is the exact opposite of the US should be doing. More animosty, and terrorism will ensue because of this faulty logic.

I must draw a distinction between the life of the American Empire and the life of the American Nation.

I believe that external and internal forces, mostly economic in nature but also political and military, will force a withdrawal of American imperial mechanisms from those places where we currently dominate. This is partly because of our inability to pay for empire, but also due to the fact that the corporations that the US spawned will no longer think of themselves as American, and certainly not subject to American control. Corporations will become the privateers floating on the political seas formerly controlled by nations.

As corporations cut their national moorings, nations will certainly wither. Our case may be more precipitous as some states approach bankruptcy. This may lead to either secession or more likely a severing of some economic relationships with the federal government. Wealthy states may also find it in their interests to become more independent as well. This will take longer, possibly up to fifty years longer.

JusticeUSA -

"America has a unique form of government that allows it to rebuild or reinvent itself if necessary." - Yes, up until now, at any rate.

See http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16788 - an interesting perspective.

Exactly the US will soon wither away into nothingless like I said into a corporatist mass of land. The US empire seems to be growing and eventually leading to it's own death. That is why I find it laughable for this pusch of power worldwide when u consider the US is unable to afford it, unable to actually have enough men to fulfill it. It being of course the PNAC, the most backward and most idiotic theory on American power ever.

USA= PNAC= ECONOMIC DOWNTURN= GLOBALIZATION= CORPORATISM = LACK OF NATIONALISM AMOUNG CORP= ECONOMIC DOWNTURN= THE END OF NATIONALISM. (essentially the US) :cool:

American Empire 1876 - 2012.

te jen, out of curiosity, why 1876 as your starting point?

Spanish Empire - 1516 - 1714
British Empire - Began with defeat of Spanish Armada in 1588, ended with loss of India in 1948.
Japanese Empire - 1896 - 1945
Soviet Empire - 1917 - 1989
Germany - 1870 - 1945


You've just listed the lifespans of Empires, that's all. How do Empires die? is a question that may never be answered, because although many Empires begin the same way (read: Gustav's Theory of Revolution, which, although I cannot find it at all on google, basically states that elites displaced from the national circle of power are generally the starters of revolutions, not the people) they almost never end the same way. The Roman Empire is still alive and well, as I believe the Catholic church has more members now than it ever has had before.

Plus, 150 billion is less than half what we spent on WW2 (in modern American $). And we lost many, many more soldiers than we have so far in Iraq. I wonder...does the cost also cover the expenses of that forgotten province of Persia, Afghanistan?

Americans have been brain washed to the point that a poll showed that 50% of the general public believes that Iraq was involved in the 911 attack (CBS news) .

Unbelievable. Do you have a URL by any chance?

How can a president of a country ask with a straight face his congress for 87 billion dollars to reconstruct another rich oil producing country, while his country is in recession and the unemployment rate is record high.?? How can he do it with a straight face?

First off, I'm not sure that you have a better idea of what we should do in Iraq. I know I don't. How should we cut corners to decrease the amount of funds we plan to spend in Iraq? Give our soldiers American flags instead of M-16s? We're there for the duration....speaking of which, if anyone has any evidence of democracy in Iraq, I'd like to see it. Just out of curiousity.

Plus, for the most part, I think the president has very little direct power over how the economy fares. It is really just coincidence that every time there has been a recession in this country there has been a republican at the helm . Seriously, though, the economy was going to hell in the last few months of Clinton's term, and that's because the economy behaves that way. There are booms and there are recessions and then there are booms again. Big booms=big recessions.

The president can help things out a bit if it doesn't look too great, however Reaganomics are not the answer. I had the same idea (originally, too!) when I was a youngin--"why don't we give tax cuts to the rich, they're liable to spend more money!" Well that's not true. They're already rich. Will my plants grow to the sky if I add a drop to my bucket of water? The money does not trickle down. Ever. The rich always somehow get richer and the poor always somehow get poorer.

One more thing: that's why, I believe, that there is indeed a god. Reagan has one of the worst diseases to plague mankind today: Alzheimer's. The man is conscious nothingness--because of his near nonexistent memory, whoever he is dies over and over again, probably every few minutes, but possibly longer than that. At least some guys get what's coming to them.

I DO, I DO, leave! Or even better never go in, in the first place. America pay for ur deeds. Too bad, too sad, let your own ppl starve, die without healthcare, let them. Poetic justice is not far behind.

Okay. I'll get the time machine warmed up, you make sure to fend off the munchkins and the klingons. Ptoh!

What's done is done. Leaving the Iraqis to themselves is a death sentence.

I know that's never going can't happen but that was the solution to ur question. The solution was never to create a problem that never existed. I.e. Al Qaeda in Iraq, increased anti-Americanism in the ME, and general angst among the Iraqi ppl.

Leaving the Iraqis to themselves is a death sentence.

And having American troops there is making this different.. because? What is a real death sentence is democrapcy in Iraq. Let's see then the other disaster you wrought on the Iraqi ppl.

You should realize as well as anyone else that if we just up and leave all the factions aren't going to just decide to start playing nice, hold elections, and be fair. No, they are going to fight over the country.

One of the points was to setup a better government. Whether you agree or not, we already demolished the old one. We can't undo that now. Leaving them to just fend for themselves is the worst of two evils.

Why do you think democracy is a 'death sentence'?

I know that's never going can't happen but that was the solution to ur question. The solution was never to create a problem that never existed. I.e. Al Qaeda in Iraq, increased anti-Americanism in the ME, and general angst among the Iraqi ppl.

Yes but we can't do that. You let one of the klingon's get by and he chewed on the time machine's power cables. As such, we have to switch from "unrealistic Plan A" to "somewhat more realistic plan B."

And having American troops there is making this different.. because?

Even if they're ruled by a corporate autocracy they still provide at least some semblance of order. Take the Americans out and moderate chaos goes to neverending anarchy massacre. And I don't care how traditional you are, Democracy is the latest fad, and it's a fad for a reason.

Again no one seems to be answering why the US is doing anything remotely close to pacifiying Iraq?

Leaving them to just fend for themselves is the worst of two evils

Maybe in your mind, but to leave Iraq in her status quo is more evil IMO then just letting it be under a constant state of animosty and fear.

Why do you think democracy is a 'death sentence'?

Well are we serious here? You seriously do not know? Simple look at Iraqi demographics. Shi'a represent 60% of the population that is overwhelmingly pro- "theocratic" state, you think communist Kurds, or Bath-ist Sunni's are going to accept this lying down? Please. :rolleyes:

Even if they're ruled by a corporate autocracy they still provide at least some semblance of order. Take the Americans out and moderate chaos goes to neverending anarchy massacre. And I don't care how traditional you are, Democracy is the latest fad, and it's a fad for a reason.

Please keep ur western centrism to yourself, b.c it is deadly obvious you know little about Democracy. Because if you did u would realize that Iraq is incapable of such a feat. Fad? Why for what reason? To satisfy Amero-centric ppl like you? LOL foolish. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by nico
Well are we serious here? You seriously do not know? Simple look at Iraqi demographics. Shi'a represent 60% of the population that is overwhelmingly pro- "theocratic" state, you think communist Kurds, or Bath-ist Sunni's are going to accept this lying down? Please. :rolleyes: You must be kidding me. Just because 60% of a nation is in a 'block' doesn't mean they are able to simply roll over the other 40%. This is one of the very reasons a distributed democracy is being put in place. Especially when you consider the financial 'perks' that would likely disappear for those in charge.

Now is the time for the US to step aside right now, and let the UN and mideastern forces under UN mandate have a chance, because Iraq is on the brink of civil war.

Because of pride, greed, and embarrassment, the Busheviks are running Iraq right into the ditch, and our greatest transgressions in Iraq are straight ahead. The US sorely lacks the necessary legitimacy to provide a semblence of stability in what could well be the first opening post-colonialist, Balkanizing spasm of many, in the region.

Only international and Arab forces, and the absence of overt Corporate (translate locally as "Zionist") America can provide a hope of a less than horrific transition to whatever new equilibrium former Iraq, and possibly a cascade of Gulf states, find themselves in.

Please keep ur western centrism to yourself

Don't you mean Hellenistic? Athenian? Spartan?

b.c it is deadly obvious you know little about Democracy

no ur wrong playa.

Because if you did u would realize that Iraq is incapable of such a feat

Yes I agree, the evidence you've presented here is so overpowering that I have begun to suffocate. Christ, Allah, Buddah, he's stained my virgin, republican eyes! Can't...breathe...

Fad? Why for what reason?

Well for one it could be the overwhelming number of nations known to man that at least pretend to be democratic.

To satisfy Amero-centric ppl like you? LOL foolish

Yes I think you hit the nail on the head there, Dr. Einstein. "LOL Foolish?" Who the hell are you? Dr. Evil with blond hair?

Originally posted by Spyke
te jen, out of curiosity, why 1876 as your starting point?

The Centennial Exposition seemed like a strong statement of America's future possibilities, "Reconstruction" was in full swing, and we were almost finished wiping out the Native American as a political and cultural force in North America. We started feeling our oats as a continental power, and military expansionism was only twenty years off. The young officers mopping up on the Great Plains were the Staff officers in the Spanish-American War.

I am sorry democrapcy in Iraq would cease to exist after a Shi'a win which will invariably happen. Remember that Sunni's and Kurds are divided by there own lines thus make 40% a joke more like 20% block against 50%. No matter how you divide Iraq up Shi'a always come in majority. They consitiute 1/3 of Iraq's land, 2/4 of the population, and they are the supported by Iran. Simply put Iraq is invaribly headed to the civil war road no matter how you may want to "spice up the pot" with your greedy American money. Also democracy is being imposed on a ppl who didn't ask for it, and this is being democratic in which way? :rolleyes:

Now is the time for the US to step aside right now, and let the UN and mideastern forces under UN mandate have a chance, because the brink of civil war upon Iraq.

The UN might be able to get a better handle on Iraqi government, but how the hell are they supposed to do a better job with the near daily rpg attacks? Bush might actually profit from something like that, because it would never be reported on the news--who the hell cares if a few swedes get shipped home in pieces? At least they're not American!

Because of pride, greed, and embarrassment, the Busheviks are running Iraq right into the ditch, and our greatest transgressions in Iraq are straight ahead. The US sorely lacks the necessary legitimacy to provide a semblence of stability in what could well be the first opening post-colonialist, Balkanizing spasm of many, in the region.

I think you're blowing things out of proportion. Hype I want to make some kind of a bet with you, regarding Iraq. I don't think it is going to get "worse" there, I think that eventually it will improve. I know the terms of the bet are vague but I don't have it quite fleshed out yet. I'm not even sure what we should bet in the first place. But I still want to make a bet with you regarding Iraq.

NO i think i mean pseudo after that one. :rolleyes:

no ur wrong playa.


Don't talk smack prove me wrong.

Yes I agree, the evidence you've presented here is so overpowering that I have begun to suffocate. Christ, Allah, Buddah, he's stained my virgin, republican eyes! Can't...breathe...


OMG lowest form of debate, man ur turning stokes on me? Can u please from wasting valuble forum space and make a fucking point?

Well for one it could be the overwhelming number of nations known to man that at least pretend to be democratic.

Yes? And your point being it's a fad, and if you had a clue what a fad is you would know that it eventuall goes away so really who gives a shit it will eventuall fail. Even according to your own definition. And also I know what you are going to say, look at the fmr. USSR. I suggest you don't stray there buddy.

Yes I think you hit the nail on the head there, Dr. Einstein. "LOL Foolish?" Who the hell are you? Dr. Evil with blond hair?

OK Mr.Fad. So stupid. :rolleyes:

Pollux I assume this is Iraqi love for the US you so speak of?

http://www.salafyahmojaheda.50megs.com/S1.GIF

Originally posted by nico
No matter how you divide Iraq up Shi'a always come in majority. You do realize that systems of democracy besides majority rule exists... right? Hell, you can't get in a thread without someone claiming that Bush wasn't elected by the majority. MOST presidents haven't been elected by the majority. Now it is always possible that they'll decide to just drop the system and kill each other... but if that's the case they'd do it with or without democracy in place.

Don't talk smack prove me wrong.

Nico look up the term "hypocrite."

OMG lowest form of debate, man ur turning stokes on me? Can u please from wasting valuble forum space and make a fucking point?

Hey man, I'm the one paying for my membership here.

Yes? And your point being it's a fad, and if you had a clue what a fad is you would know that it eventuall goes away so really who gives a shit it will eventuall fail.

By that logic nico everyone on Earth should commit suicide now because we're all going to die eventually. Not all fads go away. Hypocrisy seems to be alive and well, don't you agree?

Even according to your own definition

Uhhh...okay...

And also I know what you are going to say, look at the fmr. USSR.

Hey! Look at the fmr. USSR! There I said it. Now what?

OK Mr.Fad

That's Dr. Fad to you.

It is possible I agree but with 40% of the population fragmented into there own little camps, the communists (which the US would not allow into power), the Bath-ists (ditto), the theocratics (ditto). What other option is there for the US? Tell me, what other option do Iraqi's have to vote for. Essentially all three would abandon Democrapcy? Also majority rule is the only rule that works, i.e. Lebanon is a good example of why this will eventually fail. Again your not bringing a solution your just extending the problem which all of you seem to be oblvious too. :rolleyes: I support a Iraqi civil war as long as the country is eventually pacified.

"I think you're blowing things out of proportion. "

We are talking about the Middle East. I grew up in Lebanon, and have some direct experience with what power shifts do in this region.

Place your bets, and hang on.

You are indeed the biggest pseudo-intellectual I have met in my life. You know SMACK, SHIT ALL , nada about Iraq or it's situation. You pay for sci, so? Your point, is that supposed to make me feel inferior? LMFAO quite the opposite.

By that logic nico everyone on Earth should commit suicide now because we're all going to die eventually. Not all fads go away. Hypocrisy seems to be alive and well, don't you agree?


Fads ( I hate being semantic with ppl who don't know english):


fad ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fd)
n.
A fashion that is taken up with great enthusiasm for a brief period of time; a craze.

YEAH... UM... duh! Fucking pseudo.
:rolleyes: Hey remember socialism was a fad too, it failed as well. Just like you and your posts. Go Gorbi run free. LMFAO

Hey! Look at the fmr. USSR! There I said it. Now what?


U know what USSR is? Pseudo's are getting smarter then before. Now what are u trying to say with USSR? let's see.

Originally posted by nico
Essentially all three would abandon Democrapcy?
Wow, aren't we clever:)
If the system is setup so that each party has some control, it would be nearly impossible to 'legally' abandon democracy. In addition you can setup roadblocks to prevent an illegal abandonment from democracy.

Also majority rule is the only rule that works, i.e. Lebanon is a good example of why this will eventually fail.
Lebanon was not full of oil. The US and Europe have a selfish stake in making sure that any action which threatens the flow is put to rest.

I support a Iraqi civil war as long as the country is eventually pacified.
Well, one way or another the country will be eventually pacified. There is no harm in trying the peaceful way first (ignoring the initial cost of outing the existing government).

That said, I'm interested in exactly what your solution would be right now... and what you'd expect/hope to happen. I see that setting up a democracy which will actually work is difficult, but I don't think it's impossible.

Originally posted by fadingCaptain
Why would a government of a nation with 7,500 nuclear warheads budget $780 million to buy 12 more (http://www.msnbc.com/news/965843.asp?0dm=C16MO) ?

I agree. I see no point in having any more nuclear weapons than necessary to destroy the entire earth one time. Why the hell do we need 7500 of them? After the first hundred or so (probably less than that, actually), nobody will be left to use the other 7000-plus warheads against.

Originally posted by fadingCaptain
Lotsa questions out there but the answers are troubling...

This all got started with the Cold War. If America had 100 missiles, the USSR wanted 150. When they got 150, we wanted 200. And on and on...

The number of Americans who believe Iraq was involved in 911 has grown. I originally quoted a June CBS poll. Here is the latest poll showing 69% believe that there is an Iraqi connection to 911.

Apparently Bush's insinuations are working. Dam I can't believe people are that dumb.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32862-2003Sep5.html

We'll come around (I hope). I am certain that history is in steady acceleration, and we'd better wake up soon.

But waders we are accelerating in reverse:)

Fear is a powerful motivator: When we are confronted with the abyss, we will, with any luck, jump back. The US has been at the brink before, and I have a glimmer of hope that maybe we are getting incrementally smarter.

Bushevik recklessness may be instructive, and just maybe if there is a sufficient pause in the culture/resource war that is only just beginning to spool up, Americans will think twice.

Then, there's a chance. There will be more terrorist retaliation against America, and if we react justifiably next time, there will still be respect and cooperation.

Only in America.

Thanks I needed that

Originally posted by Galt
I agree. I see no point in having any more nuclear weapons than necessary to destroy the entire earth one time. Why the hell do we need 7500 of them? After the first hundred or so (probably less than that, actually), nobody will be left to use the other 7000-plus warheads against.


Ah... untrue. Ideally if you wanted to dissuade anyone from messing with you by threatening a salted earth policy (also known as mutual-deterance or "everybody-dies") you need either a nuke for every major city on the planet or enough to make another chixulub scale event. How many major cities does the world have.

It would be so much easier dropping asteroids from orbit.

IF you read the fine print you will see that the Pentagon wants small tactical nukes and bunker busters. Our older tactical nukes are not compatible with our newer laser and GPS delivery methods. And our 10,000 pound bunkerbusters didn't bust Saddams bunkers sufficiently.

The Centennial Exposition seemed like a strong statement of America's future possibilities, "Reconstruction" was in full swing,

I think Reconstruction was all but dead by 1876. Grant never called federal troops out in the South after 1874 and the Republicans and Democrats made the deal to put Hayes in office in 1877, which officially ended Reconstruciton.

and we were almost finished wiping out the Native American as a political and cultural force in North America. We started feeling our oats as a continental power, and military expansionism was only twenty years off.

We were probably feeling our oats as a continental power in 1848 after the defeat of Mexico and the acquisition of the Southwest territories, which doubled the size of the nation.

I think your probably in the ballpark with your date, I just wasn't sure why you chose 1876 as the specific date. I would think the 1875 friendship treaty with Hawaii, which gave the navy exclusive rights to Pearl Harbor as a coaling station might be a good starting point for when we began considering taking our place among world powers. If not that date, then the early 1880s, when Chester Arthur ordered the construction of an all new steel navy and his Sect. of State James Blaine pushed for more involvement in Latin America, including trying to secure rights to build a canal.

If the system is setup so that each party has some control, it would be nearly impossible to 'legally' abandon democracy. In addition you can setup roadblocks to prevent an illegal abandonment from democracy.


Which system of democracy is it? Please expand because there are indeed many forms of it. With 50% of the vote going to one party and less 20% going to whichever party is left over it's of no concern. How soon we forget the "success" of the Weimar republic is it not? Was not the Nazi the largest in the Reichstag? Was it not that Hitler eventually through a appointment get power and thus dictatorial ones as well. Also remember that the nazi's had dissolved government before by walking out and everytime they did the nazi's got stronger. That is democracy for you ;) Democracies abandoment is simple, get elected. Claim dictatorial powers, and thus your done. Alas Hitler. Do you actually believe that the theocratics are going to accept anything that the US and the UK has made up in a westernized secular constitution?:confused:

Lebanon was not full of oil. The US and Europe have a selfish stake in making sure that any action which threatens the flow is put to rest.


The US went to lebanon in the early 80's so there must have been a "selfish" need to go in. Oil would be insecure with a theocratic state would it not? And wouldn't (using your logic) the US block any advance in "democracy" thus is democracy really was is being adovacted I think not. If Party A dosen't want further elections and is voted into power I see no reason not to accept it as the legitimite political power broker. And again you have not provided a viable alternative.

Well, one way or another the country will be eventually pacified. There is no harm in trying the peaceful way first (ignoring the initial cost of outing the existing government).


I am willing to try peace, but I am not wiling to accept democracy which would lead to a disasterous civil war. Unless all parties in Iraq are pacified you will never have a pacified nation.

That said, I'm interested in exactly what your solution would be right now... and what you'd expect/hope to happen. I see that setting up a democracy which will actually work is difficult, but I don't think it's impossible.

Right now? Well I think what has to be done with great expediency is to get the UN in so at least there is a creditable international force. BUT the question becomes can the UN really sanction a illegal war by helping? I think that in terms of humanitarian aid and the what not you should the UN in there, but in terms of actual peace keeping troops, ideologically I say no.

What Do I expect?

I expect that Iraq will end up looking like Afghanistan post-soviet invasion. Democracy will fail, tribalism will flourish, and as long as the west get's it's oil and as long as Iraq is a withered power. I see no reason why anyone would object in the west.

What Do i hope?

I hope for Iraq will cease to exist with her current borders. They must be seperated, b.c I believe (my opinion) Iraq is a faux state, faux nationalism, and so violtile that the only real viable way of keeping it together is to keep it apart. Apart but strong.

Impossiblity?

Nothing is impossible, but it working is another story altogether. Who knows I could be all wrong, at least I hope I am.


:D

I hope for Iraq will cease to exist with her current borders. They must be seperated, b.c I believe (my opinion) Iraq is a faux state, faux nationalism, and so violtile that the only real viable way of keeping it together is to keep it apart. Apart but strong.
Won't the individual factions also fight seperation? I thought that the minority areas happened to have more oil.

All three areas, principly:

Shi'a - botton 1/3
Sunni- middle 1/3
Kurd- top 1/3.

All have about a equal amount of oil, obviously the South more so.But even to this day only 40% of Iraq has been explored estimations of Iraqi oil is about double the current estimantion of 112 billion barrels. Thus making iraq potentially 224 billion of oil, even more then Saudi Arabia. This is approx. what Iraq should look like.

Iraq's real borders (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/images/iraq-map-group1.gif)

Now the question becomes how do we achieve that? If we can peace will come to the cradle of civilization again! (Peace on earth) :D

Howabout we just perfect engines that function on non petrolium based fules and then we can just forget about them. They would suddenly have no export and then would not have enough money to support a sizeable population or do very much that could threaten anyone. They can go back to herding goats.

And Americans still wonder as to why the world hates them..sad! Us, abuse, rape, pillage, until it's of no need anymore eh? LOL you crazy imperialistic americans.

Hey, some of them keep setting oil wells and pipelines in Iraq on fire so that must be what they want. Oh, and by the way you can get courtmarshaled for raping or looting.

We are just using our evil weather control device to beat the tar out of the east coast now. Later on we will go back to creating air conditioned underwear for our troops and releasing giant man-eating cats into the wilds of Afganastan.

Yeah clock keep proving my points on Juche in America your the poster child you are.

The strange thing is the more I learn to tolerate Ghassan the more I want to throttle you. I am above your name calling so keep at it. Knowing you feel you have to enhances my ego.

Ok, Batista jr. I could care less. :rolleyes: What u love Ghassan now? Cuba does have a reputation. ;)