i think the bush administration should give up in its work to create a democratic government in iraq and should instead follow the opinion of the iraqi public- create an islamic government with good ties to the west. not only could it pave the way forward to opening up the middle-east through showing that friendly relations are possible between east and west, if something went wrong in iraq the middle-east could not then blame america for giving them what they wanted. a win win sitaution. on the reverse, a government installed by america going against popular public desire will immediately and always be resented publicly. causing the new government to align itself against america to appease public dissent against it and america for giving them that government in the first place. for a leading country in the world, america is headed by some real dumbasses. sorry for the twisty sentences. complain and i'll edit and try to clarify my thoughts.
atheroy' It seems to me that you, like so many others on this forum, assume that US leaders are "dumbasses" and go from there to delope your opinion of US policies. I assume that anyone able to win the Democrat or Republican nomination for the position of POTUS has to be smarter than most. They may be evil or just plain corrupt but never stupid, dumbass, or idiot. You make another questionable assumption, that the people of Iraq want an "islamic government". I don't think so, but you would never know watching the likes of CNN. If/when something goes wrong, we (US) will be blamed no matter what course we take so there is no point in being concerned about that. Lets just do what is right. What is right? I will trust this administration to figure that out. They certainly are more qualified to do that than I if only because they have a much better picture of what is going on.
america has spent quite a deal of money annexing iraq. it won't just leave iraq and say, ''let the people elect an anti-US muslim fundamentalist govt.''. it will be involved in setting up a pro-US govt. no matter what it's claims of 'democracy' might be. in the end, a pro-US govt. will be overthrown.
Superfudd: "I will trust this administration to figure that out. They certainly are more qualified" You have abandoned reason for faith. While comfortable in the short term, this position (if popularized enough) abdicates the responsibilities of a democratic society, and places the most fundamental ideals of the USA in extreme jeapardy. If you still can, you may wish to check up on the present administration's foreign policy qualifications. Find out how much the POTUS ]travelled before being president. Review his statements on foreign policy during his run for election. Review the foreign policy tenets of the Republican party, particularly those of Bush 1, and see if this administration is in alignment. Take a look at State Department dissent and resignations. Take a look at corporate objections to present US foreign policy. Find out about recent changes of international opinion toward Americans and American business. Avoid selective memory. Keep the very specific briefings in mind including photos of "WMD sites" and "mobile labs" in Iraq that were used to motivate America for war: Very simply, either this government was confused, or was lying. Keep in mind that this administration ran on a political platform repudiating nation-building, big government, and deficit spending. I've got to go now, but there are many good and patriotic reasons you should not place blind faith in this or any administration.
The Shiaa of Iraq clearly ask for theocracy , the did so in Iran and they did so in Iraq for many years under the opression of Saddam . Now that they are "liberated"it is only natural for them to demand theocrcay , democratically one can decide theocracy u know ? The fact that this isnt going to happen is the PROOF that democracy of Iraq never has been on the list of USA business in Iraq . No WMD No Democracy Just Israeli (guess who got the Bagdad contruction contracts) and Capitalists happyness . Im sure people try and twist their way out as usual , thats why in this sense Im anti-discussion and pro-execution Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Talking is Rhetorical , REVOLUTION is Historical . Havent u learned from Iran , from your beloved SHAH ? If USA is smart and whants controll they should follow atharoy's suggestion , they should bribe/create some religious leaders and a theocracy and hope people never find out . Chalabi......LMAO
... What do you mean "assume"? We know that Bush stole the election. We know that Rumsfeld and the 'Hawks' wanted to invade the place since the '80s. We know that the argument of :"freeing Iraq" is as intelligent as "stopping the growth of Communism" that was used in Viet-Nam. We know that there are no WMD that weren't sold by the U.S. in Iraq and that have since been long depleted. So if the U.S. governement wants us to believe all of their retarded excuses, I can safely call them dumbasses for doing so. Smart doesn't mean virtuous. The Republicans made up false claims of Iraq armament. The Democrats weren't going to oppose the CIA and FBI on what they claimed to have found. Now that the war is over, we mysteriously haven't found any WMD yet that were supposed to be undeniably in Iraq... but magically, the urgentcy that made Bush go to war is no longer there, for he is not seeking those armaments at all costs: Rumsfeld announced the reduction of military personnel in the region. Just like we didn't find Osama, we ain't finding WMD's. Some sorry excuses like: They were all sent to Iran and Syria or plundered in Iraq (yeah.. sure.) will come up if anyone bothers to actually ask the question. - The relief of the war has caused amnesia in the pro-peace movement: they should be demanding proof of WMD, the sole excuse that Bush repeated in order to go to war. (Forget his religious "axis of evil" crap and "God bless america" speeches if you have an ounce of realism in you.) Now people are on the panic for SARS and will be kept busy for awhile now that the war is over. ------------ This said, Democracy comes from the People, not from an invading country. It must be demanded not enforced. I agree that an Islamic state that is sympathetic to the U.S. is the best solution. Espescially to keep terrorists off our backs. Islam is a peacefull religion, but it is not delusioned when it consideres us as "infidels" for we are transforming their countries in a way that is opposite to religious vertues... (pretty much all of them) Islam hasn't sold out like the Christian church and the Pope. Christianity has accepted to rely of the state, but many islamic countries are still the Faith AND the State. Althought controversial, I believe that Islam is a more consequent religion than Christianity. The only downfall is that when the govenrment is not a true representative of the Qu'ran, the State becomes tyrannic and the people have no means to put a 'hand-brake' on any governement excesses. But this is only due to the fact that all the riches are in the hands of 1% of the population and the rest are incapable of fighting back. This said, if we are truly democratic people (which we are not) we will let Iraq decide of its fate, but odds are Bush will get to finalize everything with the O' so precious help of his advisors. Prisme P.S. I deplore ABC for having made a report on whether it was only dictators that made dangerous countries of if it was Islam in general. To accuse Islam of naturally hating everything we stand for is an aberration of what Islam stands for. The hate that comes towards the U.S. is caused by our draconian foreign policies: and we continuoulsy embargo populaces to starvation, we fund genocide makers, we play dictators against dictators... so we ARE transforming an ancient religion that did not ask us to change it. It is only normal for it to defend itself.
