The Real Iraq

[Azure]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Of course. In the eyes of the neo-cons criticism = treason. The US is not winning in Iraq and it's plain as day to everyone not wearing the rose-coloured glasses. Do I want them to succeed? Absolutely. However, if you look at the history of regime changes that the US has been involved in the pattern is not nice.

So really, what do you expect them to do. Sure I welcome criticism, but over operations, not over the reason the war was started in the first place. One we can deal with, the other is history.

Given that the US had had to deal with daily insurgant attacks, tension amongst the major political parties and tension from back home, I'd say they are doing a pretty good job.

Like I said, if you ask the Iraqi people, the majority of them are happy with what they have. I really don't understand how you can say the US is not winning. Every day progress is made improving the infastructure, military and economic condition of Iraq. Many regions are in complete control of the Iraqi Military, something that do me is awesome.

I also notice you have not even read the original article that was posted. Either that or you ignore what is being said. The process will not being over in 2 years, or even 5. How long did it take the 13 colonies to form a Constitution after they broke away from Britain?

If anyone took the time to notice, the Iraqi "unity" government was sworn in today. A major step IMO.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Azure

So really, what do you expect them to do. Sure I welcome criticism, but over operations, not over the reason the war was started in the first place. One we can deal with, the other is history.

Given that the US had had to deal with daily insurgant attacks, tension amongst the major political parties and tension from back home, I'd say they are doing a pretty good job.

Like I said, if you ask the Iraqi people, the majority of them are happy with what they have. I really don't understand how you can say the US is not winning. Every day progress is made improving the infastructure, military and economic condition of Iraq. Many regions are in complete control of the Iraqi Military, something that do me is awesome.

I also notice you have not even read the original article that was posted. Either that or you ignore what is being said. The process will not being over in 2 years, or even 5. How long did it take the 13 colonies to form a Constitution after they broke away from Britain?

If anyone took the time to notice, the Iraqi "unity" government was sworn in today. A major step IMO.

Yep, I agree 100%.The US isn't winning? I mean how can someone just fly by and say that? weird.

[oldschoolcalgary]

I disagree - history IS important...no, you cannot do anything about it, however, what's the old saying: "those who don't learn from past mistakes are doomed to repeat them".

The past does matter; that's where experience and wisdom come from.

If I recall, the administration basically said everything would be a cakewalk; that iraqis would shower them with parades and flowers; that the US would be out of Iraq in a couple of years...

The US has no choice at this point, other than to stay and stabilize the country...the old "pottery barn" rule...

[Agamemnon]

I figure the way people are looking at Iraq right now is similar to the way people viewed Vietnam after 4-6 years. I know a lot of people right now hold the opinion 'right or wrong, we're there now, and if we don't stay and stick to our commitments, we'll be letting our allies and the Iraqi people down'.

I think if the US can instill democracy and a capitalist economy in Iraq then that would be an amazing and great thing. But IF they don't end up succeeding, how much time and effort are they willing to pour into the attempt? Is failure even an option? Or is it something that you don't know you lost until 5 years after its over and the historians start tallying up the score? Vietnam would dictate about 10-15 years of steady conflict without ultimate result are required before the citizenry, military, and government are tired enough to figure out an end that doesn't = total victory.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

I disagree - history IS important...no, you cannot do anything about it, however, what's the old saying: "those who don't learn from past mistakes are doomed to repeat them".

The past does matter; that's where experience and wisdom come from.

If I recall, the administration basically said everything would be a cakewalk; that iraqis would shower them with parades and flowers; that the US would be out of Iraq in a couple of years...

The US has no choice at this point, other than to stay and stabilize the country...the old "pottery barn" rule...

I agree 100%. The US made a big mistake by thinking it was going to be over in 2 years. But I still remain optimistic about what will happen over there.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Azure

I agree 100%. The US made a big mistake by thinking it was going to be over in 2 years. But I still remain optimistic about what will happen over there.

Thats fine. I'm optimistic too, but you can't deny that this administration has fumbled it's way through the catastrophic events of the last 6 years. This war was poorly planned and they are not owning up to it. That's the part that ****es me off. If someone would come out and say "We made a mistake, here's the new plan..." I could respect that a lot more.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I figure the way people are looking at Iraq right now is similar to the way people viewed Vietnam after 4-6 years. I know a lot of people right now hold the opinion 'right or wrong, we're there now, and if we don't stay and stick to our commitments, we'll be letting our allies and the Iraqi people down'.

I think if the US can instill democracy and a capitalist economy in Iraq then that would be an amazing and great thing. But IF they don't end up succeeding, how much time and effort are they willing to pour into the attempt? Is failure even an option? Or is it something that you don't know you lost until 5 years after its over and the historians start tallying up the score? Vietnam would dictate about 10-15 years of steady conflict without ultimate result are required before the citizenry, military, and government are tired enough to figure out an end that doesn't = total victory.

Ummm

That HAVE. Did you miss three votes? And now in the last day or two they have formed the very forst democratic government.

The thing is...they didn't INSTILL this....the Iraqis (thank goodness because the US was a bunch of keystone cops) CREATED IT.

It is their's!

BTW* The creation of a Democracy tends to be very bloody....and prolonged

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Ummm

That HAVE. Did you miss three votes? And now in the last day or two they have formed the very forst democratic government.

Well... they didn't have a choice as far as I can tell. What other possible outcomes were there once the US got the political process started? You thought maybe the Iraqis could have chosen Communism? Socialism? Theocracy? Their current form of government was pre-ordained by the nature of their invader. Had China done the deed, I doubt the Iraqis would be setting up a constitutional democracy.

South Vietnam was a quasi-democracy as well (and held up as a shining example of democracy against the North... of course, we know now South-Vietnamese democracy wasn't exactly 'legit').

The thing is...they didn't INSTILL this....the Iraqis (thank goodness because the US was a bunch of keystone cops) CREATED IT.

It is their's!

Er... so if the US hadn't invaded, the democratic political process in Iraq would be occurring regardless? As I said in a previous paragraph, the political makeup of the new regime reflects a lot of the values of the occupier. Pure-coincidence? You seem to think so... Iraq is not a political vaccuum; Iraqis are being herded towards democratic capitalism. Which is fine by me, I happen to prefer that style of government. But I wouldn't toss on blinders and say that they're running toward our political lifestyle. Clearly they're being 'helped along'.

BTW* The creation of a Democracy tends to be very bloody....and prolonged

Right. And it was bloody in Vietnam, before it failed.

edit: Oh, and you also forgot to insult me because of my political beliefs. Shouldn't you have brought this down a few levels by now?

[Igottago]

I can't see anything really positive happening until new leadership takes the reigns. Hopefully the next US administration can steer this misguided ship in the right direction. It's too late now to simply pull out, there has to be a concerted effort, hopefully with more international help, to create some stability in the country. Primarily though, the change has to come from within, it doesn't matter who is occupying Iraq and for how long, if the factions within the Iraqi populous can't make democracy work, it isn't worth even thinking about. And this can only happen through some deep intellectual change within the society, which can take generations.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I figure the way people are looking at Iraq right now is similar to the way people viewed Vietnam after 4-6 years. I know a lot of people right now hold the opinion 'right or wrong, we're there now, and if we don't stay and stick to our commitments, we'll be letting our allies and the Iraqi people down'.

I think if the US can instill democracy and a capitalist economy in Iraq then that would be an amazing and great thing. But IF they don't end up succeeding, how much time and effort are they willing to pour into the attempt? Is failure even an option? Or is it something that you don't know you lost until 5 years after its over and the historians start tallying up the score? Vietnam would dictate about 10-15 years of steady conflict without ultimate result are required before the citizenry, military, and government are tired enough to figure out an end that doesn't = total victory.

Its hard to compare this to Vietnam, as at that time Vietnam was fought as a proxy war. There is no China or Russia supplying the insurgants with weapons and money here in Iraq.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Well... they didn't have a choice as far as I can tell. What other possible outcomes were there once the US got the political process started? You thought maybe the Iraqis could have chosen Communism? Socialism? Theocracy? Their current form of government was pre-ordained by the nature of their invader. Had China done the deed, I doubt the Iraqis would be setting up a constitutional democracy.

I do believe there where over 200 parties with their names on the voting ballets. I really don't get your point either. Are you saying the Iraqi people "should" have picked communism?

Or is it not the right and responsibility of the US to influence the people through helping them get a democratic government.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Azure

Its hard to compare this to Vietnam, as at that time Vietnam was fought as a proxy war. There is no China or Russia supplying the insurgants with weapons and money here in Iraq.

Do we really know that? I am sure there is an outside force supplying and training some of the militants. Otherwise how would they be able to sustain a war for 3+ years against the US?

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Well... they didn't have a choice as far as I can tell. What other possible outcomes were there once the US got the political process started? You thought maybe the Iraqis could have chosen Communism? Socialism? Theocracy? Their current form of government was pre-ordained by the nature of their invader. Had China done the deed, I doubt the Iraqis would be setting up a constitutional democracy.

South Vietnam was a quasi-democracy as well (and held up as a shining example of democracy against the North... of course, we know now South-Vietnamese democracy wasn't exactly 'legit').


Er... so if the US hadn't invaded, the democratic political process in Iraq would be occurring regardless? As I said in a previous paragraph, the political makeup of the new regime reflects a lot of the values of the occupier. Pure-coincidence? You seem to think so... Iraq is not a political vaccuum; Iraqis are being herded towards democratic capitalism. Which is fine by me, I happen to prefer that style of government. But I wouldn't toss on blinders and say that they're running toward our political lifestyle. Clearly they're being 'helped along'.


Right. And it was bloody in Vietnam, before it failed.

edit: Oh, and you also forgot to insult me because of my political beliefs. Shouldn't you have brought this down a few levels by now?

HUH?

Didn't have a Choice?

Do you mean to say the US hand pick all the contestants?

Have you seen the make up of this parliament......have yo read their revised Constitution?


Too insult your political beliefs is to disagree with you....

You are a hypocrit....you love to talk about choice. Unfortunately, your political beliefs are all about having NO choice. You use Political Correctness like Lenin and Stalin used guns to shoot down opposition.

Look at who your hero hobnobbed with last week, yes a guy that pull in 6 big figures yearly. The biggest, baddest terrorist group (funded by Iran tothe teeth) inthe whole wide world to spew, "the USA is the biggest teerorist nation on Earth"

Remember his pet project in Indonesia????????????????????????


GARBAGE....

[Azure]

Originally Posted by peter12

Do we really know that? I am sure there is an outside force supplying and training some of the militants. Otherwise how would they be able to sustain a war for 3+ years against the US?

Good point. So, any ideas?

While you might be right, hell I'm sure you're right, I'm sure it isn't a country with exceptional military power doing it.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

I do believe there where over 200 parties with their names on the voting ballets. I really don't get your point either. Are you saying the Iraqi people "should" have picked communism?

No. I'm clearly saying that the Iraqis did not have the 'choice' I'm being told they did. They had a choice... as long as they picked from a narrow range of constitutional democracies. Other forms of government (whether they were interested in them or not) never appear to have been on the agenda.

But if you believe the US has _zero_ political influence in the country, from invasion to now, then you could probably assume that they've 'freely chosen' their form of government.

Or is it not the right and responsibility of the US to influence the people through helping them get a democratic government.

Why just those peoples then? Why not all peoples all over the world? The US has at times in the previous 2+ decades supported anti-democratic forces in certain nations to further US interests.

I suppose I don't mind the idea that the US has the divine right and ability to command other societies in the world to be liberal-democracies... as long as they apply it everywhere. If they're going to pick and choose the places they support democracy, it makes the rest of the world view them as hypocrites (not to mention the idea of 'forcing democracy' upon a society seems inherently at odds.. don't these things usually happen internally?).

[Azure]

No. I'm clearly saying that the Iraqis did not have the 'choice' I'm being told they did. They had a choice... as long as they picked from a narrow range of constitutional democracies. Other forms of government (whether they were interested in them or not) never appear to have been on the agenda.

So what? We all know communism has never worked, socialism is a dismill failure, why allow the Iraqi people to elect government's of that nature?

You do realize that nobody would have voted for the communist party, right? After the muderous dictatorship that the Iraqi people went through with Saddam, it is only fair to say that they would support democracy.

But if you believe the US has _zero_ political influence in the country, from invasion to now, then you could probably assume that they've 'freely chosen' their form of government.

Did I say that?

Why just those peoples then? Why not all peoples all over the world? The US has at times in the previous 2+ decades supported anti-democratic forces in certain nations to further US interests.

Why must we always bring up two decades ago? Sure there have been mistakes, but you're still stuck on what happened 10 years ago, therefore it is wrong, not right, what the US is doing now.

I suppose I don't mind the idea that the US has the divine right and ability to command other societies in the world to be liberal-democracies... as long as they apply it everywhere. If they're going to pick and choose the places they support democracy, it makes the rest of the world view them as hypocrites (not to mention the idea of 'forcing democracy' upon a society seems inherently at odds.. don't these things usually happen internally?).

I think that since they invaded Iraq, overthrew the government it is "their" responsibility to look after the government, until the Iraqi people can assume 100% control.

Remember, the UN wanted no part of this invasion.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by HOZ

HUH?

Didn't have a Choice?

Do you mean to say the US hand pick all the contestants?

I adressed this already in my posts.

Have you seen the make up of this parliament......have yo read their revised Constitution?

Also adressed this.

Too insult your political beliefs is to disagree with you....

No, to debate my political beliefs is to disagree with me. To insult my political beliefs is to be a dink.

You are a hypocrit....you love to talk about choice. Unfortunately, your political beliefs are all about having NO choice. You use Political Correctness like Lenin and Stalin used guns to shoot down opposition.

Pure tripe. I worship Thomas Friedman far before kneeling down to Lenin and Stalin. Dink.

Look at who your hero hobnobbed with last week, yes a guy that pull in 6 big figures yearly. The biggest, baddest terrorist group (funded by Iran tothe teeth) inthe whole wide world to spew, "the USA is the biggest teerorist nation on Earth"

I'm not sure who you're talking about here? My hero? You have a wierd tendancy to make things up, stick them in other people's mouths, and then laugh about it. Care to go ahead and quote any statement I've ever made supporting... anyone? Stalin? Lenin? bin Laden? Hussein? There's a search function on the board, use it to prove me wrong. You've got me pegged as a supporter of every terrorist, communist, and dictator in the world... and yet I can't recall a single statement I've put out in the past 1-2 years dealing with any of these people.

You're a straight-out liar. You attempt to marginalize me by pegging me as an extremist. Take a look in the mirror dude, there's only one extremist in this thread.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

So what? We all know communism has never worked, socialism is a dismill failure, why allow the Iraqi people to elect government's of that nature?

You do realize that nobody would have voted for the communist party, right? After the muderous dictatorship that the Iraqi people went through with Saddam, it is only fair to say that they would support democracy.

Fair enough. I never said I supported any of the alternative forms of goverment. But I reject the point that 'Iraqis were free to select their own form of government'. Whether thats an important issue or not is up to you. I'm not passing judgement on what government they picked, just on their ability and freedom of range to pick.

Did I say that?

No. That's why I said, 'if you...' as opposed to 'you...' (HOZ-style). You're free to say you don't believe in it.

Why must we always bring up two decades ago? Sure there have been mistakes, but you're still stuck on what happened 10 years ago, therefore it is wrong, not right, what the US is doing now.

I guess that depends on how relevant things that happened 20 years ago are today. Being a history graduate, I think that the last 2 decades is incredibly recent history, and that nearly everything going on today has roots in the years and decades preceding.

History is _hugely_ important. Those who don't know it are doomed to repeat it. Its where we draw our lessons from. In 10-20 years we'll be looking at the Iraqi occupation and drawing conclusions that will affect politics then, just as Vietnam did.

You can't just say 'Well, its the 21st century, lets wipe the slate clean!'.

I think that since they invaded Iraq, overthrew the government it is "their" responsibility to look after the government, until the Iraqi people can assume 100% control.

Since they disbanded basically every Iraqi government organization, yes, the US military would be responsible for looking after the government.

Remember, the UN wanted no part of this invasion.

I remember. I certainly think its too soon to judge whether or not they were right. They also don't believe in invading North Korea and Iran, something that the US apparently agrees with at the moment.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Azure

So what? We all know communism has never worked, socialism is a dismill failure, why allow the Iraqi people to elect government's of that nature?

Because freedom of choice is the core basis of democracy.

You do realize that nobody would have voted for the communist party, right? After the muderous dictatorship that the Iraqi people went through with Saddam, it is only fair to say that they would support democracy.

I'm not a socialist but socialism doesn't equal dictatorship.

Why must we always bring up two decades ago? Sure there have been mistakes, but you're still stuck on what happened 10 years ago, therefore it is wrong, not right, what the US is doing now.

Actually if you look at it, many parts of this war is based on stuff that happened ten years aho.

I think that since they invaded Iraq, overthrew the government it is "their" responsibility to look after the government, until the Iraqi people can assume 100% control.

No, it's their responsibility to look after the country and make it safe. The people are responsible for looking after the government.

Remember, the UN wanted no part of this invasion.

Yes...and they were right.

[Agamemnon]

doublepost