I don't think that there was much support to start with in the world. Only Americans were blind as a bat. As usual. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Iraq_War references are in the wiki article.
Obviously. The message being americans are always late to catch on to the obvious (to everyone else) lies of their politicians. I always wondered why American presidential speeches were so ridiculous to us. Until I realized that they were written (by speech writers, or you can call them propaganda writers) for a certain subset of the American population. The subset that will win them (or so they hope) the election.
I know, why dont we pull out right now. Then Iraq can go into a massive Civil War and Saudi Arabia (and others) will start helping out the Sunnis. Then we can have a nice big Middle East War between the Sunni and Shite countries! Then oil supplies for the World would be disrupted causing the economies of the US and China to tank! Sweet! Crashed economys (possible social revolution in China) and a Regional war with hundreds of thousands dead! (Last Iraq vs Iran killed 500,000). All because we dont want to send 20,000 troops! BRILLIANT. You idiot peacefools get millions of people killed.
The situation would never have been there if you hadn't invaded. Don't blame the problems caused by warmongers on those who were actually using their brains.
Silly crazy151drinker. Anyone with half a brain can see that throwing more troops at the problem would be just as disastrous as getting everyone out with a snap of the fingers. Perhaps even more so. You seem to fail to recognize the predicament in which Bush and his fellow neoconservatives have put the nation and the new anti-war politicians that have recently been elected and will be elected in 2008. The neocons went and started a war in a Middle Eastern country which had little to do with bin Laden, under the premise that the country's leader was hiding weapons of mass destruction and that Hussein and bin Laden were working together (or whatever crazy idea was going through their heads at the time). They rallied support for the war by tying 9/11, bin Laden, and Iraq together, and succeeded. They went in and generally fucked things up, so much so that things might have actually been better off today if Iraq were left alone. They basically made a big mess, the messy and careless and irresponsible children they are. And now they're going to make the mess bigger. The anti-war politicians are stuck having to clean up a mess that they shouldn't have to deal with in the first place, that the American people didn't deserve in the first place. They now need to try to fix what the irresponsible children have fucked up, and it will be a difficult and demanding task indeed. On whom does the blame rest? The newly elected anti-war politicians and the American people that are left with this mess the neocons made, or the war hawk conservatives — such as you — that are doing their best to pigeonhole the opposition by turning the issue into a rigid, black-and-white, false dichotomy of "stay the course" versus "cut and run"? Your attempt to put words in my mouth was futile. But I guess I can only expect so much from you. EDIT: What Spurious said, only he was succinct.
Instead of the current plan: http://www.comedycentral.com/mother.../index.jhtml&ml_playlist=&lnk=&is_large=false (see second segment)
Well the whole "shoulda coulda woulda" arguement is great but we ALREADY invaded. Its too late now to play armchair quarterback. How about some solutions? (sorry, leaving isnt a solution as it only creates a bigger problem). As a true warmonger I propose sending 500,000 troops, kicking out the media, and taking care of business. No worries, you have a new retarded congress that will pull out and watch the Middle East crumble. (No worries though folks, they will string out this whole add/subtract troops thing for another year and a half. Election coming up next year and if the Middle East turns into some raging warzone because of the peacenicks then they wont get reelected. They will drag on this 'failure' in order to succeed in 08. Gotta love politics! Think about it! Your loving peacefull democrats dragging on a war so that they can claim victory! <---- do you see the poetry in motion here? Republicans create war to win, Dems cause it to fail to win! Madness! Both parties should be shot.
I totally agree. I think many more Americans will have to die for the war to be over. Even then, it will not resolve anything. Either Iraq will fall into Shia militants' hands and become another Iran, oppressing its people and creating competition for the price of oil against the Saudis, or Iraqi oil will fall into US hands and create a whole new generation of Iraqis who want to blow themselves up in frustration. Either way, the US is f*cked. And so are the Iraqis.
I suggest Bush follows the advice of the Iraq study group. Start a diplomatic solution with Iran and Syria. An advice Bush purposely neglected as an option.
That is the only possible option that can work to bring peace, however, it means the US must come to terms with its ego, hence it is the one option they will not try.
I once heard a wise man say "On this planet, at this time, it would seem that uprisings and overthowing of governments is done in the name of freedom. However, it would seem that we don't have a clear idea of how to get this freedom we are looking for. All such replacements of governments are in fact one form of oppression being traded for another". I couldn't have said it better myself. But what I am realy not clear on, is how having 30,000 troops (or whatever the number is) is going to free anyone over there. Troops have guns and things that go "boom". These have only one product, death. We can be nice and say that whoever is sending troops over there has the best of intentions. Or we can wakeup and ask the real question. Are the people that send those troops really that stupid? Perhaps they are not. Perhaps they have another agenda and will not share it with us.
When, in all of human history, has diplomacy ever worked to solve any major international conflicts? Since you suggested it, Spurious, you must have some evidentiary evidence or can point to some historic diplomatic successes to show that diplomacy actually works. I'd like to see your evidence, 'cause I ain't never found any. Baron Max
Thanks, Sam, for proving that diplomacy doesn't work! ...and never has for exactly that same reason. Baron Max
Just one more person's opinion, Sam. That don't make anything right or wrong or good or bad or .....anything else. Opinions are like the grains of sand on an endless beach. Baron Max
Yes, except when that one person has the power to send in thousands of men and women to their deaths, condemning still thousands of others to years of horror and torture and war.
And thus has been human history since the first man stood upright on the African plains. And India is one such nation that seems continuously embroiled in the horrors of human conflict and agony. Perhaps you should work to solve some of the problems in your own nation, Sam, before tackling the woes of the rest of the world? Baron Max
