Support NeoGAF

[HAOHMARU]

I think we did the right thing in Iraq. There were multiple intelligence agenies from withing and from different countries all saying Iraq had WMD. We went in and took out Saddam and are now setting up Iraq to be a successful democracy. Yes, it will take time...10, 20, 30 years down the line Iraq might be a stable democracy.

However, since hind sight is 20-20 I think Iran was the bigger threat. Reports are showing that they have the capability of making 4 nuclear weapons. Powell has already called for the U.N. to impose sanctions against Iran.

I think it is possible that we might see another war in the gulf. Partly because Iran has been included in the axis of evil...and partly because of Iran trying to develop nuclear weapons. I think Iran even has Al-Queda ties that have been confirmed.

Could this be the new domino effect? You know about the theory about the communist domino effect when one country falls to communism, it would be more likely for neighbor countries to do the same? Do you think U.S. foriegn policy is trying to establish a domino effect for democracy? Establish one in Iraq...then one in Iran?

Are we going to have to go to war again? Or could this matter about the nuclear weapons be solved through dimplomacy?

 

[effzee]

oh u mean the same powell who called for the war on iraq solely on the basis of the non existant WMD?

 

[Mr. E. Yis]

?!

Not even taking into account any of your 'excuses' for an Iran war (axis of evil?? WTF?), Iran is HUGE. Many times the size of Iraq. I doubt we could even handle it, even IF our troops do get done with Iraq in the next 5-10 years.

 

[HAOHMARU]

I'm not making excuses for a war with Iran...and the current administration is calling Iran part of the axis for evil.

 

[Matt]

A couple of things:

1. We went to war with Iraq over Iran because A.) Iraq had more oil, B.) There were already US military bases on the border of Iraq, C.) a war with Iran would be incredibly difficult, and D.) Bush hated Saddam.

2. Iran happens to be the only semi-democratic country in the entire middle east (excluding Israel, of course.)

3. Iran has little to no Al-Queda connection, and in fact hated the Taliban and all who supported them.

Also, just to make my position clear, THE WAR WITH IRAQ WAS A BAD IDEA!

 

[BigJonsson]

Iran actually has an army that can fight

 

[Mr. E. Yis]

There's just as much chance of another civil war happening in America as the chance of a war with Iran. Which is to say NO CHANCE. (or maybe both together?)

 

[HAOHMARU]

I'm just raising the question that there might be. We fought in Korea to stop the spread of Communism. Did we think we were going to be in Vietnam 15 years later?

Trust me, I don't want to go to war with Iran. I'm just saying that it is possible. Maybe not 5-10 yearrs...but it is possible.

 

[Mermandala]

Could this be the new domino effect? You know about the theory about the communist domino effect when one country falls to communism, it would be more likely for neighbor countries to do the same? Do you think U.S. foriegn policy is trying to establish a domino effect for democracy?

You just equated our military actions with those of the former Soviet Union. Good Job Comrade!

 

[SD-Ness]

Sorry, Bush has already said that he doesn't want to fight a war in Iran.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5874792/

But, of course, we all know how truthful Dubya really is. Wink, wink.

Also, just to make my position clear, THE WAR WITH IRAQ WAS A BAD IDEA!

Besides losing 1,000 solider' lives and receiving a bad face around the world...what else have we lost? Tell me Mattie-boy.

 

[Mandark]

Iran has almost four times the landmass of Iraq. It has about 70 million people, to Iraq's 25. An invasion of Iran would bring an occupation, something the US simply doesn't have the resources to do, short of a draft (and most likely a tax hike).

Too much diplomatic capital has been spent to diffuse the burden among our allies, and too much domestic political capital has been spent to have another war, just down the road, for the same reasons, with the same responsibilities afterwards, on a larger scale.

Yeah, the guys who cooked up this war were talking up a Democracy Domino Theory, which alternately involved a series of US invasions, or a peaceful spread as Iraq's neighbors saw what a free market and representative government could do for a country. Then again, the old domino theory didn't pan out so well, and the early indicators aren't any better for this one.

With all those US troops right next to them, it's hard to think of something that would convince Iran that it would be safe without nukes. I could forward this post to the mullahs, but I don't quite think that would be enough.

 

[Chrono]

Do you think U.S. foreign policy is trying to establish a domino effect for democracy? Establish one in Iraq...then one in Iran?

Democracy can't be "established" with a war in a few years. It must come from the people and evolve within their culture. For one middle eastern human rights activist are mostly seen as people with "western values." Secondly, tribal loyalty is still strong in many countries there and even though there are fair parliament elections in places like Kuwait for example, people vote for their family name or the closest one. Also, you have religion. Separating Islam from the government is an insult to most Muslims. It's saying Gods' law, which is absolute and DIVINE, is inferior to man-made ones. I could go further for example and tell you that with or without changing government 99.9% of Muslims will NOT allow books criticism Mohammad for example. The idea of opposing a view but tolerating it is not very popular. Of course, with the news dominated by "the west" invading and pillaging poor Iraqis and Palestinians and continuing their cultural (gap, women in jeans, porn, secularism, whatever) war against Islam allowing books that criticize Islam not on everybody's mind.

BTW, by democracy do you mean a western-style one? Because if you think for example gays will have rights in saudi arabia (where schools, religious leaders, and the governmetn MAKE SURE to teach their children to hate jews and infidels and consider them sub-human pigs) then you're dreaming. IF anything you're pushing people further into "tradition" and away from whatever values you bring from the west regardless of whether those value are western or universal (they're only seen as western).


===============


As for Iran, forget that too. It's 4 times the size of Iraq with 3 times the population. It has terrain ranging from afghan-like mountains to barren deserts to dense forests of Gilan and urban areas that are as crowded and messed as hell. it's also not being bombed everyday by the Americans like iraq used to. They have spies and connections to terror groups that will bring hell unto the middle east-- bomb the oil, bomb northern Israel, de-stabilize gulf governments, etcc..

Look at how many U.S. soldiers died in just najaf. Imagine ALL of Iran like that but stronger and shielded by a tougher terrain.. imagine more problems in surrounding countries....


the culture of martydom is much bigger there then iraq. Remember the iraqies surrendering to the americans by the hundreds in the first gulf war? Compare those numbers to teenage human waves clearing mines. It's also has a much stronger military. Iran, without any support from the world and after a BLOODY revolution and NO ARMY, took back all its land from iraq in 1982 and entered iraq. Saddam asked for peace but khomeiny got cocky and wanted an "islam republic" that includes the iraqi south too. That's when international support kicked in and for 6 other years STILL could not get saddam a piece of Iran. I'm talking about American intelligence and advice, French weapons, American mustard gas, etc...

The last thing you'll have to know is that the people of Iran do NOT hate their government as Iraqis hated saddam. Saddam executed hundreds without a word-- in Iran a journalism insulting the leadership gets jailed and people PROTEST. You think saddam would et those people protest? He'd mass murder all of them.


I can see an attack on the nuclear plants, and maybe an assassination attempt on leadership but FORGET about a full-on invasion of Iran as it would takes 10 times the resources it's taking for iraq. A smarter approach would be to just let it crumble under it's own weight. It has NO legitimacy with the Iranian people and unlike Saddam's government, this one can be taken down by the people. I mean you have leading mullahs and writers giving the leadership hell in newspapers and PUBLICLY and over other week one gets arrested and more protests emerge.

I'm just raising the question that there might be. We fought in Korea to stop the spread of Communism. Did we think we were going to be in Vietnam 15 years later?
.

communism != islamic fundametalism.

You have no allies inside those countries you want to change or "rid" (LOL) of those fanatics. Also, the lines between fundamentalism and "moderate' Muslims is not exact. If anything those fanatics will be heroes when they fight the Americans defending whatever country you're invading and that will end up promoting their agenda. You can not, and will not, change how people think in that part of the world. Just decide how you want to deal with them and that's it. For example, sooner or later Iran will change and become more secular. Don't think that will change the country 180 degrees. Making the best of it and hoping for it to become "more" secular (or western..) and for other countries to follow is all you can do. You can't change school texts, popular culture and thought.

 

[MetatronM]

However, since hind sight is 20-20 I think Iran was the bigger threat. Reports are showing that they have the capability of making 4 nuclear weapons. Powell has already called for the U.N. to impose sanctions against Iran.

Could this be the new domino effect? You know about the theory about the communist domino effect when one country falls to communism, it would be more likely for neighbor countries to do the same? Do you think U.S. foriegn policy is trying to establish a domino effect for democracy? Establish one in Iraq...then one in Iran?

The US says Iran has a secret nuclear weapons program. The UN says it doesn't. Last time I checked, the UN was right about Iraq's WMDs. Until the US proves to me that they're not just blowing smoke again, I'm going to just have to believe that the UN knows more about what they're talking about when it comes to weapons programs and who does and does not have them because that's what past events have shown to be true.

And, yes, I think the prevailing doctrine behind Bush's foreign policy is the domino effect. He has always gone on about how stable democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan will change the balance in the region and introduce "freedom" to the region, so to speak. Even if it's not articulated, I think that is what is going through Bush's mind.

And I have to wonder to myself how such a plan was so evil, manipulative, and insidious when we saw it happening with communism and how it is so great, noble, and righteous now that we're doing it the other way. Obviously the ends are very different, but in this case I'm speaking of the means.

Anyway, I think a war with Iran is something that we're going to try and avoid like the plague. Just an amazingly bad idea on so many levels. Even aside from logistical problems and all the issues others have raised, you simply cannot fight one Middle Eastern Islamic nation after the other, take down their regimes and install a new one, one after the other after the other. Once your start working over your third or fourth country, it won't matter what the reason is anymore. That part of the world, and Muslims around the world for that matter, will simply see a continued pattern of behavior and ostensibly a non-stop assault by America on the Islamic Middle East. For the sake of global sanity, you have to try and solve SOME of these matters diplomatically or else you're going to find yourself in some VERY deep shit.

 

[HAOHMARU]

Great points by all...that is all I am trying to do is get a good discussion going.

 

[Tekky]

I think we did the right thing in Iraq. There were multiple intelligence agenies from withing and from different countries all saying Iraq had WMD. We went in and took out Saddam and are now setting up Iraq to be a successful democracy. Yes, it will take time...10, 20, 30 years down the line Iraq might be a stable democracy.
...

Sigh. Another mindless sheep brainwashed by the propaganda.

 

[Matt]

Besides losing 1,000 solider' lives and receiving a bad face around the world...what else have we lost? Tell me Mattie-boy.

Well, first of all...isn’t that enough?

Secondly, the Iraq we have created is the world’s largest terrorist breeding ground, compared to a pre-war Iraq that, no matter what our “distinguished” President says, wasn’t. We spent 130 billion (and climbing) dollars that could have been spent far better elsewhere. We have stretched the US military to the point where they are virtually unable to react to any major crisis in the world. Finally, we have left Afghanistan with far to few troops and funding to be able to set up that country properly (which is ironic, considering that Afghanistan has MORE people then Iraq.)

All of those, plus the fact that I don’t like to be lied too. At all.

There are many more.

And only my sister calls me Mattie.

 

[fennec fox]

Great points by all...that is all I am trying to do is get a good discussion going.

For non-natives, this is GAF-ese for "I've been owned, never mind"

 

[FightyF]

AFAIK the UN didn't outright say that Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons, they are in the process of looking into it.

But this goes back to what creates anti-American sentiment. Until Bush called Iran as being part of "the axis of Evil", Iran was strengthening diplomatic ties with the US during the Clinton Administration. At that time they even had a common enemy (Al Qaeda) though no military partnerships were even talked about.

Just because Bush felt like calling them evil, made them immediate targets (for no real apparent reason). Perhaps there is classified and restricted information that would provide the reasoning? Who knows? What if Bush pointed out Morroco as an evil nation? I have a feeling more Americans would be duped into considering them a true enemy if he did...

I think it is possible that we might see another war in the gulf. Partly because Iran has been included in the axis of evil...and partly because of Iran trying to develop nuclear weapons. I think Iran even has Al-Queda ties that have been confirmed.

So, just because Dubya called them "evil", you believe it? On what basis do you consider that country evil? I think we can find many bad qualities in many nations. Does racism in the US government make it an evil nation? Does corruption in Pakistan government make it an evil nation?

Let's take a look at it from another perspective. Is Iran a threat? Well, before they took offense to Bush's statements, they were opening up diplomatic ties with the US. They weren't a threat 4 years ago. Now, they are just pissed off at the US, and perhaps they are only pissed off at the Republican party. Because they took offense to something we said, should we consider them enemies? Really, is it their fault? What happened, was that Bush fucked up relations with another country. You can't blame the Americans, you can't blame the Iranians, you blame the dumbass comments made by Bush.

How would you rank our relations with Communist China...pretty good? What if, tomorrow, Bush said that China is our enemy and an enemy to freedom? They aren't going to like it, and from that point on we are going to have to watch our back. China and the US have much to disagree on...but what's the use in pointing it out, escalating things with a poor choice of words, and implying the use of military force?

Secondly, a country a few hundred kilometers west of Iran has nukes, and the US is a-ok with it. You can say it's because they are close allies, but you have to realize that the rest of the World sees the US as bending and breaking the rules. These perceptions create distrust towards the US, which turns into worse feelings. And I guess when these other countries disagree with you, it makes them your enemies, which means you have to bomb them, right?

-edit- The US government has every right to ask Iran to adhere to International treaties and guidelines. But by the same token, it has to allow other countries to do the same. But going to war is jumping the gun.

 

[HAOHMARU]

For non-natives, this is GAF-ese for "I've been owned, never mind"

Yea, ok. For raising the possiblity that there could be war with Iran and asking quesitons about it in my first post...I'm owned? People are arguing point and coutner-point and I am owned? Hardly...I'm not going to argue against something I think is right or possibly right in other peoples comments...which is why I said "great points by all."

It would have been different if I said there "will be war in Iran"...I just suggested there was a possiblity for the sake of discussion.

 

[RiZ III]

O boy here we go again with accusing a middle eastern country of being a threat to the world. Dont worry, this war will come a year after Bush is re-elected.

 

[HAOHMARU]

So, just because Dubya called them "evil", you believe it? On what basis do you consider that country evil? I think we can find many bad qualities in many nations. Does racism in the US government make it an evil nation? Does corruption in Pakistan government make it an evil nation?

No...to clarify I meant Iran has been included in the "axis of evil" by the current administration. I don't want to go to war with them, but as I said before hind sight is 20-20 and Iran seems to pose a larger threat than Iraq ever did (nukes, ties to terrorist organizations ect.)

Now I'm not saying that we should have gone to war with them instead of Iraq. I'm just saying that at some point in the future it might happen. I'd rather things be solved through diplomacy, but there is still a possiblity that there will be war with Iran, imo.

 

[ErasureAcer]

I think we did the right thing in Iraq.

hahahahahaha

 

[Mandark]

Well, David Frum wrote the axis of evil phrase, and he's not working there anymore. The administration hasn't really pursued policy based on the idea of that axis (planning to lower the troop level in Korea, for example). I think it's been blown out of proportion because it's so catchy.

I think it was Rumsfeld making thinly veiled threats towards Syria about a year ago, but that was when the war was going swimmingly. It's quieted down since.

 

[nubbe]

North Korea is threatening... and yet they aren’t considerate as an imitate threat…

 

[Cool]

Establishing a successful democracy in the middleeast is a joke.

 

[Miburou]

The person whose posts in the other thread consisted more or less of "bullshit....conspiracy.....idiots....." now says he wants a good discussion? Nice. (and BTW, the hijacked planes were all Boeing, not Airbus. I'm not even sure if US companies can buy Airbus panes).

Anyway, a part of me would want extremist religious regimes to be changed one way or the other, but if Iraq is any indication, the US isn't exactly the best party to do a good job. And so what if Iran has/is developing nuclear weapons? So are Israel, Pakistan, India, North Korea, and of course Russia and the US. And the terrorist links will be even harder to prove, although proof hasn't been much of a hurdle in the past.

 

[Cool]

I don't understand why the US has to get so pissy about other nations having nuclear weapons when we have copious amounts of them.

 

[ManDudeChild]

Since everyone (read: every sane person anyways) has said the jist of how I feel about this I'll toss another stone into the lake. Is anyone else bothered by the fact that it seems the U.S. (who has more nuclear weapons than anyone) has basically saying, "only our allies can have nukes." Yet at the same time, has in several instances also talked about developing NEW varieties of nuclear weapons. Not a new bit to raise, but one nonetheless.

 

[brooklyngooner]

Great points by all...that is all I am trying to do is get a good discussion going.

Of course, because there are far too many intelligent, articulate posts in this thread for you to be able to reply -- or should I say copy and paste the party line into it as you do in EVERY SINGLE OTHER THREAD you enter.

 

[open_mouth_]

And the War Machine churns on. Don't you realize, war is good for business, especially the fat cats that influence our so called "leaders".

The only casualties of war: Innocents, Honor, and Humanity.

 

[Slurpy]

I think we did the right thing in Iraq. There were multiple intelligence agenies from withing and from different countries all saying Iraq had WMD. We went in and took out Saddam and are now setting up Iraq to be a successful democracy. Yes, it will take time...10, 20, 30 years down the line Iraq might be a stable democracy.

However, since hind sight is 20-20 I think Iran was the bigger threat. Reports are showing that they have the capability of making 4 nuclear weapons. Powell has already called for the U.N. to impose sanctions against Iran.

I think it is possible that we might see another war in the gulf. Partly because Iran has been included in the axis of evil...and partly because of Iran trying to develop nuclear weapons. I think Iran even has Al-Queda ties that have been confirmed.

Could this be the new domino effect? You know about the theory about the communist domino effect when one country falls to communism, it would be more likely for neighbor countries to do the same? Do you think U.S. foriegn policy is trying to establish a domino effect for democracy? Establish one in Iraq...then one in Iran?

Are we going to have to go to war again? Or could this matter about the nuclear weapons be solved through dimplomacy?

I hope you're enlisting to be on the front lines.

In other words, fuck you.

 

[Phoenix]

oh u mean the same powell who called for the war on iraq solely on the basis of the non existant WMD?

Shhhh.... mimic might hear you!

 

[Baron Aloha]

We will be at war with them in less than 5 years if things keep going the way they are now.

Now that we have adopted a first strike policy Iran will not hesitate to use those nukes once they make them. Afterall, if we are coming to get them anyway (Iran is next on the list) they might as well attack us first because they have nothing to lose. They might as well get a few licks in first. Iran's leader said as much recently.

Not only that, but a lot of the countries who helped us in Iraq probably won't help us with Iran. The Bush administration made a case that Iraq had WMDs and it turns out they didn't have them. So now, when they go before those countries again to make the same case with Iran they will lack credibility.... only this time there might actually be a threat. The USA will be seen as the boy who cried wolf.

 

[Vandiger]

I'm sure this war with Iraq was worth it

 

[HAOHMARU]

I hope you're enlisting to be on the front lines.

In other words, fuck you.

I'm raising the possiblity that there might be war with Iran, not that I want war with Iran. Instead of participating in an active discussion you have to drop that low? You have no idea who I am or what I have done. I'm not even going to respond to your comment.

Of course, because there are far too many intelligent, articulate posts in this thread for you to be able to reply -- or should I say copy and paste the party line into it as you do in EVERY SINGLE OTHER THREAD you enter.

The Republican party isn't even talking about going to war with Iran. There is no platform saying they are going to war with Iran. I don't copy and paste the party line in every thread I go into, those are my beliefs.

This thread was no more than a discussion that there might be a POSSIBILITY of war with Iran NOT that I believe there should be.

This thread turned into a personal attack on me...and it should be locked. Obviously some of the people responding don't even want to think about the topic and just lash out against me.

 

[Phoenix]

I don't understand why the US has to get so pissy about other nations having nuclear weapons when we have copious amounts of them.

Every monopolist tries to protect its monopoly. The US doesn't have to bargain with a great deal of countries because they REALLY aren't threats. You don't have to worry about them striking the continental US. However when they have nukes, they can blackmail you into doing things that you might not want to do (see the whole N. Korea fiasco). When a country has nuclear weapons (or other WMDs), they don't have to be able to attack you directly - they just have to be able to attack your allies. As such, the fewer people that have those weapons the easier the diplomatic process will be.

 

[Slurpy]

I'm sure this war with Iraq was worth it

That counter has a digital billboard set up in times square. Pretty neat.

And you know what? If I thought I may be on the US hit list anytime soon, you can be damned sure I'd try to acquire those nukes as soon as possible. There's something to be said of deterrance.

 

[Cooter]

Must you personally attack everyone you disagree with Slurpy?

It’s pathetic and childish.

It’s possible that we might engage in war with Iran but not probable.

About the doubt that Iran has or is trying to acquire nuclear weapons, they have admitted they are seeking them. No guess work involved.

 

[Slurpy]

Whoever war-mongers should be prepared to be the first soldier, to fire the first bullet, to be the first death. If you're not willing to sacrifice your own life for the cause of the war, then the cause isn't good enough. That's what I'm saying.

 

[HAOHMARU]

The person whose posts in the other thread consisted more or less of "bullshit....conspiracy.....idiots....." now says he wants a good discussion? Nice. (and BTW, the hijacked planes were all Boeing, not Airbus. I'm not even sure if US companies can buy Airbus panes).

Totally different topics. That flight 77/Pentagon conspiracy theory is asine...and you know it is. If you have any doubt, do more research on your own and you will find out the truth. Flight 77 hit the Pentagon that day. When I said "air bus" I meant passenger liner...not the Airbus brand name.

Anyway, this thread is about the possiblity of war in Iran. The military's top officials have said Iran was a bigger threat than Iraq. They have nuclear capabilities and ties to terrorist organizations. I want diplomacy to handle Iran...but I still think there is a possiblity of war with them in the future.

 

[HAOHMARU]

So this:

I hope you're enlisting to be on the front lines.

In other words, fuck you.

Was supposed to mean this?

Whoever war-mongers should be prepared to be the first soldier, to fire the first bullet, to be the first death. If you're not willing to sacrifice your own life for the cause of the war, then the cause isn't good enough. That's what I'm saying.

You are expecting alot from people to read into your original comment then.

 

[Miburou]

Totally different topics. That flight 77/Pentagon conspiracy theory is asine...and you know it is.

And someone could also find saying "we did the right thing in Iraq" to be equally asinine. The point is, don't expect a civilized debate when you have no qualms about calling people idiots. Calling someone's statement silly is one thing, calling them names is an entirely different matter.

If you have any doubt, do more research on your own and you will find out the truth. Flight 77 hit the Pentagon that day.

I will. And I never said I didn't believe a plane hit the pentagon, just that I had some questions that needed answering.

 

[Phoenix]

Whoever war-mongers should be prepared to be the first soldier, to fire the first bullet, to be the first death. If you're not willing to sacrifice your own life for the cause of the war, then the cause isn't good enough. That's what I'm saying.

Whoever wants fast food should be prepared to be the first cook, to fry the first fry, to be the first to get burned by the grease. If you're not willing to work in McDonalds to get fast food, then you aren't hungry enough.


See the problem with your statement is that it assumes that the people who would put is in this position (politicians) should also be soldiers. These are two different jobs in our country and are entered into voluntarily by both parties. I would love to have a system where in order to have a voting voice in anything would require an act of service to the country - but we don't have that. In the system we live under soldiers enlist with the understanding that someone else may decide to send them to war for whatever the cause.

 

[xsarien]

Do you think U.S. foriegn policy is trying to establish a domino effect for democracy? Establish one in Iraq...then one in Iran?

Nothing concrete has been established in Iraq yet. If that were the case, we 1) Wouldn't be needed there anymore; 2) wouldn't be fighting civilian resistance in the street.

What the Neocon philosophy of using the might of our military to establish democracy fails to take into account is that you can't simply "install" it like you would a computer patch. Democracy has to rise from the people, not from an outside nation's will. You can't just assume that things will turn out all right in 15-20 years like the NC's do. It's arrogant, and the price, regardless of whether it's right or wrong, may be too high.

Iraq is significantly less stable than it was under Saddam, that's perhaps the worst thing we've done over there. Saddam was a dictator, a rather strict one at that. But I don't recall news reports about people in the streets setting off bombs while he was in power. Aruably, keeping him in power was the smartest thing Bush Sr. did, because he knew that the entire country would land on its side and we'd have to sacrifice a lot of time, money, and most importantly, lives to keep at least the appearance of chaos not reigning.

But the damage is done now, and God knows how long we're going to have to keep people over there to make sure things turn out all right.

Meanwhile, in the Sudan, which makes Saddam's rule look like Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood...

 

[yoshifumi]

hell let's just take the whole damn planet.

shit or get off the pot

 

[beerbelly]

To original poster: "We" ? Are you posting from Iraq?

 

[Cooter]

Nothing concrete has been established in Iraq yet. If that were the case, we 1) Wouldn't be needed there anymore; 2) wouldn't be fighting civilian resistance in the street.

What the Neocon philosophy of using the might of our military to establish democracy fails to take into account is that you can't simply "install" it like you would a computer patch. Democracy has to rise from the people, not from outside nation's will. You can't just assume that things will turn out all right in 15-20 years like the NC's do. It's arrogant, and the price, regardless of it's right or wrong, may be too high.

Iraq is significantly less stable than it was under Saddam, that's perhaps the worst thing we've done over there. Saddam was a dictator, a rather strict one at that. But I don't recall news reports about people in the streets setting off bombs while he was in power. Aruably, keeping him in power was the smartest thing Bush Sr., because he knew that the entire country would land on its side and we'd have to sacrifice a lot of time, money, and most importantly, lives to keep at least the appearance of chaos not reigning.

But the damage is done now, and God knows how long we're going to have to keep people over there to make sure things turn out all right.

Meanwhile, in the Sudan, which makes Saddam's rule look like Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood...

Oh the sky is falling, in 1 ½ years Iraq isn’t a full fledge peaceful democracy. What a shame. I guess we should pack it in.

Do you know how shortsighted your thinking is?

I believe you can install the climate and foundation for democracy via military action. We shall see who is right in 20-30 years.

About Saddam: you are correct.

I don’t remember hearing stories of bombs blowing up in Baghdad.

I somehow doubt the mass graves filled themselves and the rape rooms were for show however.

I agree with you about Sudan. Something needs to be done.

 

[xsarien]

Oh the sky is falling, in 1 ½ years Iraq isn’t a full fledge peaceful democracy. What a shame. I guess we should pack it in.

Do you know how shortsighted your thinking is?

I believe you can install the climate and foundation for democracy via military action. We shall see who is right in 20-30 years.

Says the person who somehow managed to skip an entire paragraph...

 

[Cooter]

There was no paragraph skipped.

 

[xsarien]

There was no paragraph skipped.

Then apparently you didn't actually read what I wrote, because I never said the sky was falling, that it was a failure, or that we should just pack it in. In fact, I conceded, quite clearly, that we're probably going to need to stay there for a very long time.