Dallas-Mavs.com Forums
Old 08-22-2007, 02:55 PM   #1
AxdemxO
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,250
AxdemxO is a splendid one to beholdAxdemxO is a splendid one to beholdAxdemxO is a splendid one to beholdAxdemxO is a splendid one to beholdAxdemxO is a splendid one to beholdAxdemxO is a splendid one to beholdAxdemxO is a splendid one to beholdAxdemxO is a splendid one to beholdAxdemxO is a splendid one to beholdAxdemxO is a splendid one to beholdAxdemxO is a splendid one to behold
Default Democracy not the goal anymore

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/...acy/index.html

Mann this is sad...wht happened to the democracy tht was supposed to be there after Hussein. But I guess now anything is acceptable...I mean only a cup of 100 thousand people have died and now well it doesnt matter no more. This is why you cant impose democracy on any1 and why Iraq was better off under Hussein then it is today or will be in the near future and thts why the US should mind their own biz and if they want to do something why dont they go to a place like Darfur...or maybe try resolving things without wars...but thts impossible..cuz we are bout to go to war with Iran...

Rush Hour 3 "I am never going to be like an American, I will never know how it feels to kill people for no reason"
__________________

"It feels disrespectful when you watch these shows, TNT, ESPN, and they're talking, 'Walk through the Mavericks, that's who you want to play," Terry said. "OK. We'll see if that's who you want to play."


........GO MAVS
AxdemxO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2007, 04:48 PM   #2
Janett_Reno
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,150
Janett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to all
Default

It was much more stable with Sadam. Everyone was scarred of him and all the muslim nations was and they did not come in Iraq as they feared him.

Now honestly, if we really did fear wmd's then we should have got the un to keep on and inspect him. I do not know why we did what we did. I know he was kicking out the inspectors and he was hard to deal with. We did not fear Iraq at all but we did and do fear Iran. Iran was in complete check with Sadam. They was scarred to death of him.

What gets me, why did we do this to just give Iran this country? Whomever is the strongest between Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran get's Iraq. If Syria and Iran team up, then it will be hard for Saudi Arabia. This is the two countries we didn't want this to happen. Honestly, i do not understand the neocons way of thinking. As i have said, we wasn't and are still not going to make Iraq a vacation spot and a sweet place to visit. It is many factors why that won't happen as many countries around will make sure that doesn't ever happen.

We also claimed we went in to free the people. Maybe we will free Cuba and Venzuela, maybe Iran and Syria, North Korea and so on. See where you can get in trouble trying to police the world? The people has left and leaving Iraq. Do you blame the people, to go somewhere where it is peaceful and get out? If we stay it will get worse and if we leave it will get worse. See the options?

It is not the troops fault at all, they won the war and marched in easy but the neocons have them just patrolling around trying to police it now. Why didn't the neocons leave after they freed the people? Why did the neocons make the troops stay?

If the neocons stay in, yes many fear war with Iran, but i keep thinking the neocons will finally wake up and stop with what their mission is. If the people is mad and upset and they are being treated badley, then at some point it is an up rising and the people will fight to free themselves and they do this with from within. Not outsiders. It is some situations where outsiders must help.

The neocons is not a main stream Democrat or Republican but a part of a very small group that has broke away from the Republican party to have an agenda of their own. Who knows when we will find out the truth on what they are trying to do.

You are so right, you can't impose democracy on anyone.
Janett_Reno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2007, 07:52 PM   #3
Usually Lurkin
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 8,195
Usually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond repute
Default

uh, I'm guessing neither of your families was raped, tortured, or gassed under Saddam?
Usually Lurkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2007, 07:58 PM   #4
AxdemxO
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,250
AxdemxO is a splendid one to beholdAxdemxO is a splendid one to beholdAxdemxO is a splendid one to beholdAxdemxO is a splendid one to beholdAxdemxO is a splendid one to beholdAxdemxO is a splendid one to beholdAxdemxO is a splendid one to beholdAxdemxO is a splendid one to beholdAxdemxO is a splendid one to beholdAxdemxO is a splendid one to beholdAxdemxO is a splendid one to behold
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin
uh, I'm guessing neither of your families was raped, tortured, or gassed under Saddam?
Pleaseee dont use tht. No one said Saddam was good for the people but he was better then what they have now. There has been more of that going on there now then there ever was under Saddam and its much worse. Not just for one group of people, but 4 every1.
__________________

"It feels disrespectful when you watch these shows, TNT, ESPN, and they're talking, 'Walk through the Mavericks, that's who you want to play," Terry said. "OK. We'll see if that's who you want to play."


........GO MAVS
AxdemxO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2007, 09:10 PM   #5
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AxdemxO
Pleaseee dont use tht. No one said Saddam was good for the people but he was better then what they have now. There has been more of that going on there now then there ever was under Saddam and its much worse. Not just for one group of people, but 4 every1.
How ridiculous. That's why the iraqi people continue to risk getting killed and having their families killed to try and stand up a government.

And why shouldn't "that" be used, there's a reason that the iraqi people hung his ass so quickly.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2007, 08:04 PM   #6
Mavdog
Diamond Member
 
Mavdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,014
Mavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud of
Default

I'm certainly not an apologist for the current administration, and having been a vocal critic of this war since even before its launch I am not going to defend those who plunged iraq into the violent existence it is today.

however, to make the claim that "Iraq was better off under Hussein then it is today" is ludicrous.

and yes repressive fascist societies are much "more stable". they don't tolerate any dissent, don't allow for any free expression, and the elite have all the wealth while the masses suffer...does that make them desireable?

not at all. it makes them a scourge.
Mavdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2007, 08:30 PM   #7
Janett_Reno
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,150
Janett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to all
Default

Just wait and see how it goes down in history. If we stay see how nice and rosey it will be and if we leave see how nice and rosey it is going to be.

It is a no win situation. Except Iran and Syria now grows into a bigger power. Is that what the neocons wanted?

Usually Lurkin, is China, Russia, Syria, Cuba, Iran, Vens(Chavez), North Korea on your next hit list? I think they violate the human rights laws also. I think the poster that started the thread makes a point, you can't impose democracy on others. Only people can be helped that want's help. We can't police the world.

Usually Lurkin, you can't just turn me into a neocon and i can't turn you into a Democrat, Independent or i can't make you like Ron Paul. The point is, we can't just make people who we want them to be. People must want it bad enough to make a change. Sadam was a mean man and he ruled with an iron fist and he is not the only one, go look who rules those other countries i just mentioned. Do you think Iraq will be a better country and a nicer place with Syria, Iran and or Saudia Arabia running it? Bin Laden attacks the usa, so we invade Iraq? Was Bin Laden running Iraq? Bin Laden has more wmd's than Sadam.

What is the plan now Usually Lurkin as we pull out? What nice Republican Christian young man is going to run Iraq now? If you do not feel Iran, Syria and Saudi will start fighting for Iraq now to gain control, who is going to take control and will Iraq now be peaches and cream and a nice place?

I am simply saying, was we really that better off, if it is not much hope of staying and looks like now the neocons are going to start pulling out. Has "Mission Accomplished" really been accomplished? Maybe it has and maybe i am missing something as maybe the neocons just wanted Sadam out and that is all. If that is it, then mission is accomplished. Is that county going to be better off when we leave and now they have their freedom?

What is your plan Usually Lurkin? Think W is doing the right thing now starting to get out or do you feel it is a win, win situation, things are great if we stay and it will be great if we get out?
Janett_Reno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2007, 09:11 PM   #8
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janett_Reno
Just wait and see how it goes down in history.
We certainly will.

Quote:
If we stay see how nice and rosey it will be
It's will be worlds better than saddam.

Quote:
and if we leave see how nice and rosey it is going to be.
It will be a monstrous bloodbath. Making what is going on look tame.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2007, 09:19 PM   #9
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janett_Reno
Usually Lurkin, is China, Russia, Syria, Cuba, Iran, Vens(Chavez), North Korea on your next hit list? I think they violate the human rights laws also. I think the poster that started the thread makes a point, you can't impose democracy on others. Only people can be helped that want's help. We can't police the world.
Of course not, don't be obtuse. Dubya was supposed to go invade N. Korea as well, but well,well,well...It seems that he's not quite the warmonger you think he is. Only someone just trying to make political points would think that every situation is to be dealt with in the same manner...or an idiot. You tell me which you are being?

Quote:
What is the plan now Usually Lurkin as we pull out? What nice Republican Christian young man is going to run Iraq now?
You continue to show your true colors here as you continue to pretend that this is some sort of religious endeavor. Nowhere, NOWHERE has the US tried to enforce any religiousity on iraq or anywhere else.


Quote:
I am simply saying, was we really that better off, if it is not much hope of staying and looks like now the neocons are going to start pulling out. Has "Mission Accomplished" really been accomplished? Maybe it has and maybe i am missing something as maybe the neocons just wanted Sadam out and that is all. If that is it, then mission is accomplished. Is that county going to be better off when we leave and now they have their freedom?
Yes, unless we leave them like we did the vietnamese. Remember them, how BEAUTIFUL it was after we left? The millions dead?

Quote:
What is your plan Usually Lurkin? Think W is doing the right thing now starting to get out or do you feel it is a win, win situation, things are great if we stay and it will be great if we get out?
The plan has ALWAYS been to get out. Always...But Al Queda had other plans. Everyone thinks that it is static, that Al Queda didn't have plans of their own after Saddam was overthrown, but they did.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’

Last edited by dude1394; 08-22-2007 at 09:25 PM.
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2007, 09:20 PM   #10
Janett_Reno
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,150
Janett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to all
Default

So let freedom ring. Now Iraq is going to be a nice peaceful place and nation now, since Sadam was hung? I would not bet the house on that. I hope i am very wrong and i hope it turns out to be a peaceful nation and freedom rings but i just do not see how it does and can like the neocons. I know they feel mission accomplished and everything now will be ok but many in the middle east want to get a foot hold on as many countries as they can.

Sadam is not the only evil man in the middle east. I do agree, he was but the democracy of the middle eastern countries are not like ours. The beliefs differ alot from ours and alot believe over there that freedom is not for everyone.
Janett_Reno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2007, 09:28 PM   #11
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Yea they like having their wives, daughters raped by hussay/qusay and their sons tongues pulled out, eyes gouged out. They would MUCH rather have that than freedom.

Who knows WHAT it's going to look like. The iraqis haven't had a chance with al queda blowing up everything in sight. The kurds seem to like freedom, the turks seem to like freedom. All of the people trying to get into israel seem to like freedom.

I understand it's tough. But your bigotry is ridiculous. Poor poor arabs, so stupid they need a dictator to take care of them.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’

Last edited by dude1394; 08-22-2007 at 09:30 PM.
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2007, 09:55 PM   #12
Janett_Reno
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,150
Janett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to all
Default

dude, you can't go around countries taking them over and waiting 10, 20 or 30 years and staying with big huge forces and then getting out 10 to 20 years down the road. Iraq is for us to guard the place now or go around and kick up the enemy or wait for the suicide bombers come rolling in.

Are we doing this for our freedom? The usa's freedom?

dude from the neocons point of view, they want a new world order and this administration has did a very good job of starting this and it probably won't be long untill goods flows thru Mexico, USA and Canada like one country. Where those 3 countries will be joined at the hip as the neocons has pushed for. It is comming to where when the new world order has higher laws to run all countries and where they keep ripping our constitution apart. It is to far on it's way now and i don't feel any pres can stop it now, no matter their party.

They need the oil flowing freely from the middle east but it is some that do not want to play by those rules. Iran is not going to be a cake walk as it is about 5 times as big as Iraq. Guess who has big ties to that oil dude? China and Russia. Those are some heavy hitters dude not wanting those oil fields bothered. It is dangerous whatever now happens with Iran and now it is more dangerous because we have help knock off one of Iran's biggest enemy, Sadam.

Some of the oil deals being done now are with Iran. I am speaking of Iraq, they are now dealing with Iran. I am not so sure the neocons wanted this. Many people have fled and are fleeing now and the three reported countries most are going is Syria, Jordan and Saudi.

Now dude if you are like the neocons and wanting Iran bumped off next, let's use our head first and not just firse the first shot and then bully in and hope for the best. Let's discuss it.

Iran is a huge country comparred to Iraq. It has a big border with Pakistan, remember them? Not to friendly with us. Afganistan, Turkmenistan, Iraq. Smaller borders with Turkey, Azerbaijan, plus it is a big country. So put troops and guard Iraq, then invade Iran and then have to close all those borders and guard it? Dude we can get spread to thin.

They say that freedom doesn't ring in Iran either. That the guy there rules with a pretty heavy fist as well. So do we go set them free? These things are not minor moves but very major, just as Iraq was. It is hard to do these things going alone. You need help from other countries. Other day on Yahoo news i read where it was reported we was chasing around a 50 man elite force of Iran, inside Iraq. It can make tensions high.

I am not sure the usa people has the same agenda as the neocons. I don't think they do. We can't change the world or impose world democracy. The best way is not always by the gun to change the world.
Janett_Reno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2007, 10:08 PM   #13
Usually Lurkin
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 8,195
Usually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janett_Reno
dude, you can't go around countries taking them over and waiting 10, 20 or 30 years and staying with big huge forces and then getting out 10 to 20 years down the road. Iraq is for us to guard the place now or go around and kick up the enemy or wait for the suicide bombers come rolling in.
how long were we in Germany? Japan?

Quote:
you can't impose democracy on others. Only people can be helped that want's help.
ergo we should not stop the mass murdering madmen?
Quote:
We can't police the world.
if we didn't spend so much energy convincing foreign nations how stupid the US is, it would be a lot easier to lead the world in policing itself.
Usually Lurkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2007, 11:03 PM   #14
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janett_Reno
dude, you can't go around countries taking them over and waiting 10, 20 or 30 years and staying with big huge forces and then getting out 10 to 20 years down the road. Iraq is for us to guard the place now or go around and kick up the enemy or wait for the suicide bombers come rolling in.
Again...and...again....and...again...bds really effects the ability to keep facts straight it seems.

The WHOLE world thought saddam had wmds. We know he supported terrorists and harbored terrorists. He was given one last chance by the UN (and the US) to declare those wmds and he did not. That was why we took out saddam. It was in our strategic interests to do so. Many do not feel that way, but that was the reason that we did it.

Not for OIL..not to make the christian, not to get revenge for dubya's daddy. But because after 9/11 tensions were high and folks thought that any minute a mushroom cloud or poison gas would be relased in NYC or elsewhere. We had just had anthrax mailed to governement offices, newspapers. We had to evacuate one government building for months.

If Al queda hadn't "invaded" iraq I expect we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Quote:
Are we doing this for our freedom? The usa's freedom?
We did it for the reasons above. We are "doing" it because again it's in our best interests to:
a. Not lose to Al Queda
b. Not allow Iraq to become a failed state.

Not religion, not because it makes us feel good, because it's in our best interests for Iraq to be stood up. Get it?

Quote:
dude from the neocons point of view, they want a new world order and this administration has did a very good job of starting this and it probably won't be long untill goods flows thru Mexico, USA and Canada like one country.
You mean the Nafta trade agreement that Clinton signed??? Keep your tinfoil hat on, you need it.

Quote:
Where those 3 countries will be joined at the hip as the neocons has pushed for. It is comming to where when the new world order has higher laws to run all countries and where they keep ripping our constitution apart. It is to far on it's way now and i don't feel any pres can stop it now, no matter their party.
Where is our constitution being "ripped apart"?? The "new world order". What in the world are you talking about?? The UN? Canada/Mexico and the US are the "new world order"? You think europe/china/india/russia might have a little bit to say about that?

Lunacy.

Quote:
They need the oil flowing freely from the middle east but it is some that do not want to play by those rules.
I've got news for you son, we ALL need oil to flow freely from the middle east. Don't you realize that the economic boom of the last 20 years has saved millions and millions of people from abject poverty and brought them a better life?

Do you want to just turn out the lights and go back to teepees? More lunacy.

[quote] Iran is not going to be a cake walk as it is about 5 times as big as Iraq. Guess who has big ties to that oil dude? China and Russia. Those are some heavy hitters dude not wanting those oil fields bothered. It is dangerous whatever now happens with Iran and now it is more dangerous because we have help knock off one of Iran's biggest enemy, Sadam. [quote]
What's your point? Will you be happier when Iran drops a nuke on Israel? Or kuwait? Or the UAE? You want to just go put your head under the covers and not deal with reality...Sorry it doesn't work that way.

DO YOU HONESTLY THINK that the US leaving Iraq with our tail between our legs will somehow cause Iran to QUIT supporting terrorists throughout the middle east? When will you WAKE UP and read what Iran and Al Queda say.

No matter how much you tremble and hope for the best, Al Queda and Iran will not stop. We have to be steadfast here. It's courage, not cowardice that is needed.

Quote:
Some of the oil deals being done now are with Iran. I am speaking of Iraq, they are now dealing with Iran. I am not so sure the neocons wanted this. Many people have fled and are fleeing now and the three reported countries most are going is Syria, Jordan and Saudi.
What is your point? Sure Iran has oil, iraq has oil. China is going to build like a zillion coal-fired plants for their energy needs, global warming can kiss their ass for all they care.

Quote:
Now dude if you are like the neocons and wanting Iran bumped off next, let's use our head first and not just firse the first shot and then bully in and hope for the best. Let's discuss it.
What I want is to continue to pressure Iran as much as possible. I'm not interested in going to war with them. But we cannot be allowed to be run out of the middle-east like the democrats want, we just cannot. It will NOT be pretty.

So you use the things that dubya has been using. You pressure their financial markets, your pressure other companies and business to try and put financial pressure on them. Which has been making an impact by the way.

You try to get the limp-**** UN to do something. You somehow try to persuade the europeans that Iran is laughing their assess off at their attempts to "persuade" them to stop theiir nuclear weapons programs.

Or do you not think they are trying to get nukes either?

Quote:
Iran is a huge country comparred to Iraq. It has a big border with Pakistan, remember them? Not to friendly with us. Afganistan, Turkmenistan, Iraq. Smaller borders with Turkey, Azerbaijan, plus it is a big country. So put troops and guard Iraq, then invade Iran and then have to close all those borders and guard it? Dude we can get spread to thin.
Quite making crap up. I know my geography. So what do we do if Iran shoots missiles into Iraq and the US contingent there? Sit back and say "please, stop". I'm not advocating invading Iran, but to be honest if we don't give a crap what happens to iran during a war, I'm not that scared of them either.

Our biggest problem with this type of engagement is that it's peace-keeping as well as tracking down terrorists. If Iran attacked us (or if we wanted to attack them) I expect the vaunted Iranian army might not be all that you think. There isn't a military in the world (especially not in the middle east) that could provide much of a challenge to ours.

It would all be in what we wanted to do after an invasion. It sure probably wouldn't be try and democratize Iran because as you mention we do have our hands full.

On the other hand, it might seriously put a dent in al queda support which might have more of an impact than we know.

Remember wars are very unpredictable.

Quote:
They say that freedom doesn't ring in Iran either. That the guy there rules with a pretty heavy fist as well. So do we go set them free? These things are not minor moves but very major, just as Iraq was. It is hard to do these things going alone. You need help from other countries. Other day on Yahoo news i read where it was reported we was chasing around a 50 man elite force of Iran, inside Iraq. It can make tensions high.
You don't listen well do you. See above..

Quote:
I am not sure the usa people has the same agenda as the neocons. I don't think they do. We can't change the world or impose world democracy. The best way is not always by the gun to change the world.
No one's trying to "change the world" or "impose world democracy". See above, we have always been motivated by our strategic interests. Nor do we "only" try a gun to "change" the world. The US provides huge humanitarian aid, provide protection for global trade, secure oil lanes. We provide huge amounts of funds and "soft" power all over the place.

Unfortunately sometimes you need a COP. Those that think everything can be solved by talking are the first to yell for a COP.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2007, 10:19 PM   #15
Janett_Reno
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,150
Janett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to all
Default

Do you read the bible dude? It is going to be fighting in the middle east if we stay or if we leave. This hasn't just started since the neocons took over. The neocons has just stirred a hornets nest. We took our eyes off the ball, Bin Laden is our target and Al Queda.

I know how you feel, to invade Iraq, now we have a battefield to fight Al Queda on. They move around. Again, they was not in Iraq untill we invaded. Now they are. It is many groups trying to get a foot hold on Iraq. Many, not just Al Queda.

The enemy was pouring from countries and places our own government told the generals and they told the troops, do notttttttttttttt cross certains places or lines or go into other countries. This was Vietnam dude. In war it is ugly and you let the troops have a fair shake and do what they can and you do not limit them, by telling them go to sleep now but tomorrow we will walk around and kick up the enemy in these fields and jungles and us get shot at. Then go back and do this again tomorrow as they come in. If you go to war, you go to win but they put to many restrictions on our guys. I know someone that was shot and he ran a boat up and down this river, he was shot in the back and he thought he would never walk again but he did and even fought more. He was always patrolling up and down this river on a boat. He said once he was so happy and proud as all his men was on the boat because they could see where the enemy was running to and hiding. It was a place they was not allowed to cross but from high up, he was told one night at midnight, he could cross that line and chase them and get them with some more boats that would be with him. About 2 hours before midnight he was called on the radio and said no. You have orders to not cross that line, it is called off. He was so let down, because he said it was the same cat and mouse thing, clearing them out to that line as they ran and hid where he could not go. As soon as we left, they came back across. Vietnam was politcal and it was wrong if they wanted our troops there, they should have turned us loose. They had to many restrictions on us.

Reaction to Bush's speech on Iraq

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070822/...blhgMIalSyFz4D

Reaction to President Bush's speech on Iraq at the Veterans of Foreign Wars' convention Wednesday in Kansas City, Mo.

"The president's surge was supposed to create the political space for national reconciliation. Instead the politics have reached total gridlock, while the security situation remains essentially unchanged. By the President's own measures the surge has failed." — Ilan Goldenberg, policy director of National Security Network in Washington.

"The speech was an act of desperation to scare the American people into staying the course in Iraq. He's distorted the facts, painting all of the people in Iraq as being on the same side which is simply not the case. Iraq is a religious civil war." — Lawrence Korb, assistant defense secretary under President Reagan and now a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank in Washington.

"Bush is cherry-picking history to support his case for staying the course. What I learned in Vietnam is that U.S. forces could not conduct a counterinsurgency operation. The longer we stay there, the worse it's going to get." — Ret. Army Brig. Gen. John Johns, a counterinsurgency expert who served in Vietnam.

"The president emphasized the violence in the wake of American withdrawal from Vietnam. But this happened because the United States left too late, not too early. It was the expansion of the war that opened the door to Pol Pot and the genocide of the Khmer Rouge. The longer you stay the worse it gets." — Steven Simon, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

"President Johnson said in 1966, `The solution to Vietnam is patience.' President Nixon said in 1969, 'As our commanders in the field determine that the South Vietnamese are able to assume a greater portion of the responsibility for the defense of their own territory, troops will come back.' Today, we hear the same misleading rhetoric coming from this administration. In Vietnam, we were talking about 10 years of patience and, in the end, a U.S. military solution did not work. Now, five year's into the war in Iraq, the president continues to seek a U.S. military solution to an Iraqi civil war. The American people will not accept patience as a strategy while the Iraqi Government continues to ignore key political and economic benchmarks." — Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the House Appropriations' subcommittee on defense.

"Whatever improvements in security that may have resulted from the efforts of our troops since the surge began, Iraqi leaders have not done the hard political work on which the future of their country depends. And therefore, the purpose of the surge — to enable the Iraqis to produce political reconciliation has not been accomplished. That is the standard against which Congress and the American people will judge the White House report of September 15." — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
Janett_Reno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2007, 11:14 PM   #16
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janett_Reno
Do you read the bible dude? It is going to be fighting in the middle east if we stay or if we leave. This hasn't just started since the neocons took over. The neocons has just stirred a hornets nest. We took our eyes off the ball, Bin Laden is our target and Al Queda.
Who the HELL do you think is attacking US and the Iraqis in Iraq BUT Al Queda. Who has been using suicide bombers to instigate the sectarian violence IN iraq?
Why do you think that Anbar province and much of the baghdad belts are not safer than before?? It's because ourselves and the Iraqi's are now targeting...AL QUEDA.

What does the bible have to do with this? Are you saying that this is armaggedon or something? That Bin Laden is the anti-christ? The middle-east has been in turmoil ever since the caliphate was beaten out of europe. If you are saying that this is a "religious" war then it's a war between christianity and islam. AS WELL as tribes and factions within the middle east.

Quote:
I know how you feel, to invade Iraq, now we have a battefield to fight Al Queda on. They move around. Again, they was not in Iraq untill we invaded. Now they are. It is many groups trying to get a foot hold on Iraq. Many, not just Al Queda.
You don't know squat about how I feel about this. I would much,much rather have had Al Queda stay out of iraq. That country would probably be relatively stable by now imo. Our leaving certainly wouldn't have the impact that it would now.

Quote:
The enemy was pouring from countries and places our own government told the generals and they told the troops, do notttttttttttttt cross certains places or lines or go into other countries. This was Vietnam dude. In war it is ugly and you let the troops have a fair shake and do what they can and you do not limit them, by telling them go to sleep now but tomorrow we will walk around and kick up the enemy in these fields and jungles and us get shot at. Then go back and do this again tomorrow as they come in. If you go to war, you go to win but they put to many restrictions on our guys. I know someone that was shot and he ran a boat up and down this river, he was shot in the back and he thought he would never walk again but he did and even fought more. He was always patrolling up and down this river on a boat. He said once he was so happy and proud as all his men was on the boat because they could see where the enemy was running to and hiding. It was a place they was not allowed to cross but from high up, he was told one night at midnight, he could cross that line and chase them and get them with some more boats that would be with him. About 2 hours before midnight he was called on the radio and said no. You have orders to not cross that line, it is called off. He was so let down, because he said it was the same cat and mouse thing, clearing them out to that line as they ran and hid where he could not go. As soon as we left, they came back across. Vietnam was politcal and it was wrong if they wanted our troops there, they should have turned us loose. They had to many restrictions on us.
This i agree with. However form what I understand, the S. Vietnamese had gotten to the point where they were beginning to stand up. But we bailed on them, not only militarily but the democrats wouldn't even provide our ally with financial aid. Pathetic and disgusting.



Quote:
Pathetic Democrat Reaction to Bush's speech on Iraq

"President Johnson said in 1966, `The solution to Vietnam is patience.' President Nixon said in 1969, 'As our commanders in the field determine that the South Vietnamese are able to assume a greater portion of the responsibility for the defense of their own territory, troops will come back.' Today, we hear the same misleading rhetoric coming from this administration. In Vietnam, we were talking about 10 years of patience and, in the end, a U.S. military solution did not work. Now, five year's into the war in Iraq, the president continues to seek a U.S. military solution to an Iraqi civil war. The American people will not accept patience as a strategy while the Iraqi Government continues to ignore key political and economic benchmarks." — Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the House Appropriations' subcommittee on defense.

"Whatever improvements in security that may have resulted from the efforts of our troops since the surge began, Iraqi leaders have not done the hard political work on which the future of their country depends. And therefore, the purpose of the surge — to enable the Iraqis to produce political reconciliation has not been accomplished. That is the standard against which Congress and the American people will judge the White House report of September 15." — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2007, 11:27 PM   #17
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Since you wanted to chat about dubya's speech today. Here's another snippet. If you are putting much stock in murtha's and pelosi's blubbering, you really are being taken for a ride.


Quote:
The tragedy of Vietnam is too large to be contained in one speech. So I'm going to limit myself to one argument that has particular significance today. Then as now, people argued the real problem was America's presence and that if we would just withdraw, the killing would end.

The argument that America's presence in Indochina was dangerous had a long pedigree. In 1955, long before the United States had entered the war, Graham Greene wrote a novel called, "The Quiet American." It was set in Saigon, and the main character was a young government agent named Alden Pyle. He was a symbol of American purpose and patriotism -- and dangerous naivete. Another character describes Alden this way: "I never knew a man who had better motives for all the trouble he caused."

After America entered the Vietnam War, the Graham Greene argument gathered some steam. As a matter of fact, many argued that if we pulled out there would be no consequences for the Vietnamese people.

In 1972, one antiwar senator put it this way: "What earthly difference does it make to nomadic tribes or uneducated subsistence farmers in Vietnam or Cambodia or Laos, whether they have a military dictator, a royal prince or a socialist commissar in some distant capital that they've never seen and may never heard of?" A columnist for The New York Times wrote in a similar vein in 1975, just as Cambodia and Vietnam were falling to the communists: "It's difficult to imagine," he said, "how their lives could be anything but better with the Americans gone." A headline on that story, date Phnom Penh, summed up the argument: "Indochina without Americans: For Most a Better Life."

The world would learn just how costly these misimpressions would be. In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge began a murderous rule in which hundreds of thousands of Cambodians died by starvation and torture and execution. In Vietnam, former allies of the United States and government workers and intellectuals and businessmen were sent off to prison camps, where tens of thousands perished. Hundreds of thousands more fled the country on rickety boats, many of them going to their graves in the South China Sea.

Three decades later, there is a legitimate debate about how we got into the Vietnam War and how we left. There's no debate in my mind that the veterans from Vietnam deserve the high praise of the United States of America. (Applause.) Whatever your position is on that debate, one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like "boat people," "re-education camps," and "killing fields."

There was another price to our withdrawal from Vietnam, and we can hear it in the words of the enemy we face in today's struggle -- those who came to our soil and killed thousands of citizens on September the 11th, 2001. In an interview with a Pakistani newspaper after the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden declared that "the American people had risen against their government's war in Vietnam. And they must do the same today."

His number two man, Zawahiri, has also invoked Vietnam. In a letter to al Qaeda's chief of operations in Iraq, Zawahiri pointed to "the aftermath of the collapse of the American power in Vietnam and how they ran and left their agents."

Zawahiri later returned to this theme, declaring that the Americans "know better than others that there is no hope in victory. The Vietnam specter is closing every outlet." Here at home, some can argue our withdrawal from Vietnam carried no price to American credibility -- but the terrorists see it differently.

We must remember the words of the enemy. We must listen to what they say. Bin Laden has declared that "the war [in Iraq] is for you or us to win. If we win it, it means your disgrace and defeat forever." Iraq is one of several fronts in the war on terror -- but it's the central front -- it's the central front for the enemy that attacked us and wants to attack us again. And it's the central front for the United States and to withdraw without getting the job done would be devastating. (Applause.)

If we were to abandon the Iraqi people, the terrorists would be emboldened, and use their victory to gain new recruits. As we saw on September the 11th, a terrorist safe haven on the other side of the world can bring death and destruction to the streets of our own cities. Unlike in Vietnam, if we withdraw before the job is done, this enemy will follow us home. And that is why, for the security of the United States of America, we must defeat them overseas so we do not face them in the United States of America. (Applause.)
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2007, 01:32 AM   #18
Janett_Reno
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,150
Janett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to all
Default

All this Iraq war, oil prices higher, and 9/11 happening and Bin Laden running loose is all Jimmy Carter's fault, Bill Clinton's fault or i imagine you would try to tell me that and spin it that way. If we put faults on it and politics, i say it is both parties but i think the neocons are most at fault.

It has been many in these forums to point out to you, it is like talking to a fence post, all Republicans are beautiful and should rule the world and all Independents, Democrats and any Republican that votes with Independents or Democrats is our trouble. Blame everything on them because your neocons have never done wrong and will never do wrong. They are perfection.

Everything with you is politics. I wouldn't be surprised with you watching a basketball game, you blame Democrat refs. This forum is politics and i understand that but the country and about 70% of the American public do not have a closed mind and when anything bad or wrong happens they can say i am sorry, i made a mistake and i hope i can do better. Then it is some people that claim they are about as close to perfection as they can get, they do no wrong and they blame others for any mistake they make in their life.

You have bascially told others, yes you have a closed mind anything pretty much W and Chains does or says or any of the big time neocons, another being Ramsfield, you totally agree with every move.

I say this kind of thinking is a little scarry. You seem to hate all Democrats and all Independents and all Republicans that side with them. I am proud to say i have an open mind and i would never have a problem votting for Ron Paul or some of the Democrats. The best way our system works is if it is a Rep Pres, then a Dem Congress or Dem Senate is in charge. It helps either party running rough shot over the best interest of the people and just passing bills to help the party. If it is a Dem president, then it is good to have a Rep congress and Senate to help with the same thing.

It is great how our system operates and where we do not have a dictorship like some want. If the people do not like what they have and see, they can vote it out. Now the problem is this neocon administration has blundered so bad, now the next senate, congress and pres is all going to be one sided again.

It was all Republican for a long while and now soon it will be all Democrat or i am talking a majority. This is not good.

Is Bill Clinton making W scale down troops and the talks of bringing some home? Is W just making this up? Are you going to be upset or will you blame Democrats if W starts scalling down and bringing some troops home?

As far as Vietnam, as long as people pour over the borders like ants and hornets day after day and you are told, you can chase them to this line and shoot at them but don't dare to cross these certain lines, it makes it hard for us to do what we wanted. I know with you, it is a Democrat thing. Do you feel like if these suicide bombers and these hornets keep pouring in from Saudi, Iran, Syria and it is reports many comming from Jordan to, that we will chase them and go get them? See the problem? It is not a Bill Clinton thing or a Democrat thing. It is policy and do you know why troops are told not to cross certain lines? Where other countries do not get involved and make it bigger than it is. Do you know why it isn't the best thing to go to war without un aproval or from any help of other countries? Because now we do not have as much bargaining power and it is harder to talk to un and other's to try to get the ants and hornets pouring across. No one want's to listen. These ants and hornets are not going to stop comming across because they know we can't cross certain lines, plus they know the more havoc they make, they feel the quicker we will leave. I know, again with you it is a Democrat thing. The terrorist have no chance fighting us in a convential way, so they fight dirty. They hide behind places and things we are not suppose to touch and go. If we do, it makes the war bigger and spreads and again, it is best to be united with more countries than just us on a full blown middle eastern war in more than one country.

Some of them dude just do not fight fair and if pulling hair was illegal, then they would pull hair. When we chased Laden out of Afganastan did we go full force into Pakistan? Can you see where the hornets and ants go hide and we are not allowed to go chase them? Some lines and places are off limits and this makes it a problem sometimes. We went inside Pakistan some and we got scolded. They said they would get him.

If you want to know the truth, where some said W's speech was bad and wrong bringing up Vietnam. I say he was right and i agree with W, bringing up Vietnam as i also see similarties but then again i do not have a closed mind or think one way. Maybe W will reach out for ideas and help trying to do the best with what we are in and go a differ route than the bullying route.

Whatever happens i hope it is in the best interest of our troops and i respect Vietnam vets as much or even more so with the hell they was put thru and putting limitations on them. Then they come home and was treated bad and mean. It wasn't like they wanted to be there but there duty. It was not there fault they went or came home. They did what they was told.

I am not a politician and do not claim to be but i have faith in our system and the ones that make the decisions that they will see our best interest and our troops best interest and will come to a conclusion with what is best and do it. Before you say, well Janett, only trust the neocons and they will make all this alright. No, i am not closed minded. I will listen as a whole, to the Neocons, the Republicans, the Democrats and Independents to talk and come to a conclusion in the best interest for us and our troops.

The Democrats, the Republicans and the Independents will make it hard for the Neocons to just bully and run rough shot.
Janett_Reno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2007, 06:08 AM   #19
AxdemxO
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,250
AxdemxO is a splendid one to beholdAxdemxO is a splendid one to beholdAxdemxO is a splendid one to beholdAxdemxO is a splendid one to beholdAxdemxO is a splendid one to beholdAxdemxO is a splendid one to beholdAxdemxO is a splendid one to beholdAxdemxO is a splendid one to beholdAxdemxO is a splendid one to beholdAxdemxO is a splendid one to beholdAxdemxO is a splendid one to behold
Default

Dude it is just soo interesting how u always seem to make your self look right and every1 else wrong....you sound sooo ignorant. This is a discussion and the point is to be able to tlak about things yet just like the USA is trying to impose democracy around the world you are trying to impose ur opinion and "your facts" on some1...like you know any better
__________________

"It feels disrespectful when you watch these shows, TNT, ESPN, and they're talking, 'Walk through the Mavericks, that's who you want to play," Terry said. "OK. We'll see if that's who you want to play."


........GO MAVS
AxdemxO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2007, 08:39 AM   #20
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AxdemxO
Dude it is just soo interesting how u always seem to make your self look right and every1 else wrong....you sound sooo ignorant. This is a discussion and the point is to be able to tlak about things yet just like the USA is trying to impose democracy around the world you are trying to impose ur opinion and "your facts" on some1...like you know any better
So you have something against democracy? I refute your use of "impose", promote would be more like it.

Ax it is just soooo interesting that you brought 0 to this discussion. You post the below and you think folks just are going to agree with you? Instead they debate your position and I hear crickets from you.

If you have a position on it and can defend it then do so. I haven't seen it yet.

Quote:
Mann this is sad...wht happened to the democracy tht was supposed to be there after Hussein. But I guess now anything is acceptable...I mean only a cup of 100 thousand people have died and now well it doesnt matter no more. This is why you cant impose democracy on any1 and why Iraq was better off under Hussein then it is today or will be in the near future and thts why the US should mind their own biz and if they want to do something why dont they go to a place like Darfur...or maybe try resolving things without wars...but thts impossible..cuz we are bout to go to war with Iran...
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2007, 10:22 AM   #21
alexamenos
Diamond Member
 
alexamenos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
alexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Nightmarish political realities in Baghdad are prompting American officials to curb their vision for democracy in Iraq. Instead, the officials now say they are willing to settle for a government that functions and can bring security.

Continuing violence -- like this Baghdad blast from May -- is causing a rethink of U.S. goals, generals say.

A workable democratic and sovereign government in Iraq was one of the Bush administration's stated goals of the war.
Not only was a democratic Iraq one of Bush's goals, it was something he deemed critical to the security of the United States.

I always thought the notion that democray in iraq was critical to our security was hogwash, but regardless any admission that democracy in Iraq is off the table is an admission that the adventure has failed.
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24
alexamenos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2007, 03:53 PM   #22
Usually Lurkin
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 8,195
Usually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexamenos
Not only was a democratic Iraq one of Bush's goals, it was something he deemed critical to the security of the United States.

I always thought the notion that democray in iraq was critical to our security was hogwash, but regardless any admission that democracy in Iraq is off the table is an admission that the adventure has failed.
If you are right that Bush was wrong that democracy in Iraq was critical to security, then you are wrong about being right that failure of democracy is failure of the mission

in other words:
If security is the goal of the adventure, and democracy does not necessarily lead to security, then how can failure of democracy be failure of the adventure?

Personally, I think a failure to establish a secure democracy will lower the level of security we gain from the area - but just about any form of government other than Saddam Hussein will raise the level of security we have in the area. We still need to stick it out long enough for some form of government to be established that will allow us a security presence in the region. That will still be an improvement over the past.

Last edited by Usually Lurkin; 08-23-2007 at 03:53 PM.
Usually Lurkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2007, 04:20 PM   #23
alexamenos
Diamond Member
 
alexamenos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
alexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin
If you are right that Bush was wrong that democracy in Iraq was critical to security, then you are wrong about being right that failure of democracy is failure of the mission
well that makes perfect sense...

Quote:
Personally, I think a failure to establish a secure democracy will lower the level of security we gain from the area - but just about any form of government other than Saddam Hussein will raise the level of security we have in the area.
I don't think I can agree with this, ul....pardon the hitler analogy, but it would have been easy to say in the early 1930's that any regime in Germany would be an improvement over that which had preceeded, but as it turns out that wasn't the case....

....and while we're at it, let's also recall that Hitler first came to power as germany was attempting to transform itself into a liberal democracy. That is to say, we still don't know what Iraq is gonna look like down the road, so it's a bit premature to say that it's better than what came before -- things can always get worse.

................

i just don't think US security is necessarily better off because of democracy in Country X, for that begs the question of who Country X might put in power and what such a person or group might do once he's attained the power.....

....Pakistan comes to mind -- The pakistanis are overwhelmingly nutjob crazy, and they have nukes. I dare say that I'm ok with the fact that our ally Mushareff is a military dictator. I've seen polls where 60+% of the folks there think the US is the great Satan and that Bin Laden is the shiznit.

You want those guys voting on a government, and whether they ought to nuke the great satan? I ain't so sure that I do.

cheers
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24

Last edited by alexamenos; 08-23-2007 at 04:22 PM.
alexamenos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2007, 10:37 AM   #24
Mavdog
Diamond Member
 
Mavdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,014
Mavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud of
Default

as it relates to the idea that democracy itself will "defang" countries where extremism is alive, the experience in palestine (the rise of an elected hamas dominated government) and what is occuring in iraq dispells that notion.

the proposition that the removal of hussein was critical to america's security is merely the justification the current administration sought to launch the war. it has never been nor will it ever be validated. that wil not however stop some from endorsing the idea, after all one cannot prove the negative.

as was stated before, the war was won in the few weeks after it was launched.

it is the peace that has proven to be much more difficult to acheive. but make no mistake, there will eventually be a semblance of peace in iraq, it just may take much more time and many more lives than those who conceived this war ever thought it would.
Mavdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2007, 11:33 AM   #25
alexamenos
Diamond Member
 
alexamenos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basketball fan nirvana
Posts: 5,625
alexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond reputealexamenos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mavdog
as it relates to the idea that democracy itself will "defang" countries where extremism is alive, the experience in palestine (the rise of an elected hamas dominated government) and what is occuring in iraq dispells that notion.

The proposition that the removal of hussein was critical to america's security is merely the justification the current administration sought to launch the war.
I suspect that alot of big-wigs in washington are enamoured with the so-called "democratic peace theory." In my view it's quite conceivable that the powers-that-be really want to spread the blessings of democracy across the globe, however quixotic such a quest might be.

this not an unmitigated good, imo, as a crusade to spread democracy is quite likely to resemble....well....a crusade. That is, the white man's burden has and will become the western liberal's burden, and all that this entails.

as for the specific case of Iraq.....it really wasn't that hard to guess what a democratic iraq might look like: a sharia based shiite dominated government with close ties to Iran and a desire to nuke Israel.

nowadays, Bush and friends are just shocked, SHOCKED, that Malaki is making overtures to Ahmadinejad, an event which should only come as a huge surprise to those who can't find iraq and iran on a globe. (of course, life insurance premiums on Maliki have gone through the roof recently as he prepares for the ngoh dinh diem treatment)

anyhoo....i don't know how much of the liberating iraq stuff was pre-text and how much was bonafide....either way it doesn't set real well with me.

cheers
__________________
"It does not take a brain seargant to know the reason this team struggles." -- dmack24
alexamenos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2007, 03:04 PM   #26
Janett_Reno
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,150
Janett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to all
Default

dude, it is news daily like what i am going to show you and guess what, it is not Bill and Hillary, this guys name is John Warner and he is actually a Republican dude. Is Warner really a Democrat dude? Did Murtha make John Warner say this?

Sen. Warner: Start bringing troops home by Christmas

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/...raq/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- One of the Senate's top Republicans has called on President Bush to start bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq by Christmas, telling reporters Thursday that a pullout was needed to spur Iraqi leaders to action.

Sen. John Warner of Virginia, the influential former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he has recommended that Bush announce the beginning of a U.S. withdrawal in mid-September, after a report is released from the top U.S. officials in Iraq.

"In my humble judgment, that would get everyone's attention the attention that is not being paid at this time," said Warner.

Warner met at the White House on Thursday with Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, the White House official responsible for coordinating Iraq issues.

Warner said the president and other leading Bush administration officials have repeatedly said the American commitment to Iraq was not open-ended.

"The time has come to put some meaningful teeth into those comments -- to back them up with some clear, decisive action," Warner added.
Janett_Reno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2007, 03:10 PM   #27
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

No he's not John Murtha. But he's wrong imo. I don't know enough about Warner...but I do know enough about Murtha and Pelosi.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2007, 03:51 PM   #28
Janett_Reno
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,150
Janett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to all
Default

Also read this dude. This does not sound good as we can't even trust the ones we put in power. How can we help people when they are running to Syria and Iran for support? Read this and keep in mind, this is not the democracy we dreamed of. If this middle east oil is flowing, guess where it flows to? If Syria and Iran back this guy and run his country, then it flows only where Iran and Syria want's it.

I know you will tell me, that is why we have to stay. See it leads to more, down the road and then we will see. Guess what countries can call the suicide bombers and say let's stop it now? Those countries want a piece of the Iraq pie now. When Nouri al-Maliki, get's in bed with these countries, then the suicide bombers stop or it gets much better. This Nouri al-Maliki is going to play everyone for all they are worth. It's a bad mess is what it is. How long does this Nouri al-Maliki last, when he starts selling people out? Then who is the 3rd one that comes in? We won the war and marched in dude but we never expected this to happen, what is happening. I know your answer is to stay and promote democracy. All the people that want to be free are moving out and getting out of Iraq, while they have a chance. The ones that want to fight for Iraq, for whatever reason, different ethnic groups, different countries, are pouring in. They are raising havoc now and they will when we leave untill one of these rulers with an iron fist moves back in and he will not be a free man. It will be a man backed by another country to run Iraq. This is why it is bad probs if we stay or if we leave. This self healing promoting cheer and good will with demorcracy for all doesn't work when the people do not unite. Do you think they will unite? Not a chance. Oh no, in your mind it is no religion involved but those ethic groups have religion by their name. I already reported to you, the christians there are being asked for money to stay or to convert to Islam, or bad things will happen to them. Is this democracy? That is not freedom and let freedom ring.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Losing U.S. support could make al-Maliki look elsewhere

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/...iki/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- It is vogue in Washington to place blame for the chaos in Iraq squarely at that the feet of its leader, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. In recent days calls have grown louder in many corners of the U.S. government for al-Maliki to step down.

As violence in Iraq continues and next month's assessment of the U.S. troop surge approaches, the U.S. has stepped up pressure on al-Maliki for failing to nudge his factious government toward political reconciliation, including passing legislation distributing Iraq's oil wealth and amending the constitution.

President Bush this week called al-Maliki a "good man with a difficult job," but also expressed frustration at the snail's pace of political reconciliation among Sunni and Shiia factions in Iraq. The U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, too, said political progress in Iraq has been disappointing.

But members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, aren't engaging in such diplomatic niceties. The Chairman of the Senate Arms Services Committee, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, called for al-Maliki's ouster.

The assault comes on the heels of a boycott against al-Maliki by both Sunni and Shiia lawmakers and ministers in his cabinet, which could further paralyze the government.

Al-Maliki's critics following the debate in Washington are using that criticism it as ammunition to call for a new prime minister. One of their strongest weapons came this week when Crocker warned that American support for the al-Maliki government did not constitute a "blank check."

Maliki's response: Back off.

In a trip to Syria this week the Iraqi prime minister scolded his American friends for daring to challenge the will of the Iraqi people who installed him and dismissed their criticism as Washington politics.

It's a role reversal that speaks volumes about the inherent complexities and contradictions of the Bush administration's policy of promoting democracy in the Middle East.

When the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, Bush promised Iraq would become a beacon of democracy in sea of Middle East dictatorships. When he won re-election, Bush made promoting democracy in the region the cornerstone of his foreign policy.

But the administration has struggled with the need for stability and support for the democratic process. The election gains of Hamas in the Palestinian territories, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt all proved democracy could produce undesired results for the U.S. In each of these cases the U.S. abandoned the victor, saying that democratic "elections" are different than governing democratically.

In Iraq, too, the U.S. has abandoned a democratically elected leader when it withdrew its support for Ibrahim al-Jafari, Iraq's former prime minister who also failed to bring reconciliation among Shiia, Sunni and Kurd factions in his government. The U.S. was involved in engineering al-Jafari's ouster in favor of al-Maliki.

Now, despite being democratically elected, al-Maliki risks being cast aside with the same kind of disregard for the democratic selection process the U.S. has criticized around the world.

Publicly no Bush administration official will call for his removal, but the messages emanating from Washington are being seen as signals to al-Maliki's critics that his days are numbered.

But as with Hezbollah and Hamas, Maliki's message to the U.S. is that he will survive without the U.S.

Standing in Syria, a foe which the U.S. has blasted for its failure to respect democracy in Lebanon and its own country, al-Maliki said he would "find friends elsewhere" if he was abandoned by the United States.

A loss of U.S. support could force al-Maliki to turn to Syria or Iran, which the U.S. accuses of meddling in Iraq, supporting insurgents and sending deadly explosives to kill U.S. troops.

That would not be a good day for democracy in Iraq.
Janett_Reno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2007, 04:10 PM   #29
Janett_Reno
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,150
Janett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to all
Default

The risk the neocons took dude by invading Iraq and promotting democracy and letting those oil fields flow freely, was much more of a risk than they knew. You can't guess when you go to war or wish for. You must use your head.

At some point and time we will scale down, now, next year or 10 years from now dude. Guess who is stronger now that we invaded Iraq? Guess who has kept there money, there arms and weapons, and are just building up like vultures waiting for the right time to swoop down and gobble up the prey? These are countries in the middle east that the USA doesn't have good relations with.

Instead of promotting democracy and cheer around the middle east, it is going to leave it very unstable until they quit fighting for Iraq and whoever get's it. I am saying when we get out, now, a year from now or 10 years from now. We can't and we won't put a ruler in Iraq that rules with an iron fist because we do not believe this way and this is not our democracy. I am proud we are not this way but the middle east does not rule and promote democracy like we do. Again this is another problem and they live different from us.
Janett_Reno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2007, 11:11 PM   #30
Usually Lurkin
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 8,195
Usually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond reputeUsually Lurkin has a reputation beyond repute
Default

oh, no. I didn't mean to imply that any form of government would be better. Only "just about" any. I think the only thing that is necessary for our security is that when we do leave, there should exist one more country in the region (and this one centrally located) who is willing to allow us (the US, the UN, whomever) to stage operations when and if another taliban go too far. That, of course, means that Iraq can't be run by something Taliban like.

The other goals, like democratic freedom in the region and the inspiration that would be for others in the region, and security for the Iraqis from constant governmental terror are things we very much want (and are right to fight for), but are only beneficial for, and not necessary for increasing the security status of the US.

-oh, and most of the polls and stories I've read say that the general populace in Iran and Pakistan are much more liberal-minded (and America friendly) than large portions of the ruling bodies. I really don't know much about them, though, and could be wrong. I would think the greater success we have in Iraq (maybe just defined in increase in the well being of the everyday Iraqi) that is attributed to the US, the less the people in those other countries will think of us as the great Satan. I'm pretty sure they love us in Kuwait and Dubai, for example.

Last edited by Usually Lurkin; 08-23-2007 at 11:12 PM.
Usually Lurkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2007, 07:03 PM   #31
Janett_Reno
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,150
Janett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to allJanett_Reno is a name known to all
Default

Report: Top Gen. To Advise Iraq Troop Cuts

Joint Chiefs Chairman Expected To Tell Bush Iraq Force Should Be Cut Almost In Half

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n3200501.shtml
Janett_Reno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2007, 08:05 PM   #32
dude1394
Guru
 
dude1394's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
dude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond reputedude1394 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

So "this" general is telling the truth but Petraeus is a bush mouthpiece? Funny how those generals sure have to be the "right" kind.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
dude1394 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.