Iraq elections

personally, i can't wait until Jeb Bush has to go in an take down the next shitty Iraqi government in 12 years or so.

[QUOTE=Maddetchke Malorkus]

Well now isn't this something. The US overthrew the only secular government in the Middle East, imposed elections, whereupon it looks like the Iraqi people will vote in the very sort of theocracy the US has denounced in other Arab nations. And, it gets even better. If Sistani wins (and survives the event), his first official act will be to tell the US to get the heck out of Iraq. Good! I think Sistani is quite a reasonable person though. His sort of theocracy could potentially be more reasonable than the sort of sectarian political coalition the US would hope for. And certainly a *progressive* independant theocracy would have a more positive effect on the theocracies of the region than a puppet US government. George Bush wouldn't be happy.[/QUOTE]

I hope he wins, and we leave. And then the country goes back to exactly the way it was before we went there. It's a complete waste...

[QUOTE=JustinHolt]I hope he wins, and we leave. And then the country goes back to exactly the way it was before we went there. It's a complete waste...[/QUOTE]

Jon Stewart and [i]Time Magazine[/i] columnist Joe Klein were talking about this exact issue on the Daily Show yesterday. Both were subsuming whether or not this "freedom" that the Iraqi nation was worth going over there, but Iraqi women hugging U.S. soldiers on terms of endearment seemed to show that this liberty and sovereignty wasn't for nothing.

[QUOTE=Jeebus]Jon Stewart and [i]Time Magazine[/i] columnist Joe Klein were talking about this exact issue on the Daily Show yesterday. Both were subsuming whether or not this "freedom" that the Iraqi nation was worth going over there, but Iraqi women hugging U.S. soldiers on terms of endearment seemed to show that this liberty and sovereignty wasn't for nothing.[/QUOTE]

But did they pay these women?

YA CONSPIRCAY!

I'll just leave now...

[QUOTE=Jeebus]Jon Stewart and [i]Time Magazine[/i] columnist Joe Klein were talking about this exact issue on the Daily Show yesterday. Both were subsuming whether or not this "freedom" that the Iraqi nation was worth going over there, but Iraqi women hugging U.S. soldiers on terms of endearment seemed to show that this liberty and sovereignty wasn't for nothing.[/QUOTE]

For every example of affection out there, there's probably ten of just the opposite. Yeah, the liberation might have been good for a lot of people, and I'm sure it gives a lot of people "hope" whatever that word means for them. But still, without our forces that country would fall right back into the tyranny and opression like it was before. And what happens when Hitler...I mean Bush...decides on the next country to invade. We only have so many troops to spread...and already, we're pretty thin.

How about spending that $400 billion or whatever they just agreed to over here. Now that's an idea.

I couldn't agree more, Justin. Political debate in this country isn't exactly centered around facts and data, the way science is. It's mostly an emotional game. We have these very general feelings and intuitions about things, and then we attempt to arrange data and construct arguments to back up these emotions.

I know a lot of peaceniks who had an instant knee-jerk reaction to 9/11. They immediate said, "Damn, here we go again, another event that will be manipulated by government in order to further pursue violent imperialism and the destruction of civil liberties." The distrust of government was primary. The aversion to death and destruction were primary. The sense that "this is usually what happens, so this is probably what's happening now" was primary. Afterwards, the intellectual rigor came into play. When Bush made it clear that he wanted to invade Iraq, they already knew to oppose it on moral grounds. The next stage was to find out how to make the argument to others, which requires tearing apart the pro-war argument wherever there are holes. This is not a particularly difficult thing to do, but the thing to realize is that the argument that Iraq had no WMD's was constructed after we had determined that our president was up to no good. We opposed the invasion, therefore, we tried to counterargue any time an argument was made. If WMD's had turned up, very few peaceniks would have suddenly changed their stances. Their belief in the immorality of war was not centered around something as simple and clearly defined as the fact that Bush was lying about WMD's. It is much bigger than that. In fact, I tried not to make a big deal about the WMD's, because those weren't the issue. It's one issue, but not the central argument. WMD's or no, that invasion was wrong.

That's sovereignty for you — any method possible to just to add authority to our interventionalist world title. Yippee!

it's because people are too lazy to form an actual opinion and reasoning gor sanything that happens instead, they get emotional over something they just "believe" to be wrong. I personally don't like it when somebody tell me they wont agree with something because the person is part of the other party. Like it's an alien race that can't possibly understand anything about what's going on.

Oh I know it's incredibly irritating how everyone votes for what they think are moral values, what's more emotionally driven, what's moral and sometimes that ends up to be entirely subjective so how can you fight a moral war? How can you impose your own "morality" like that? No one in the Bush family is over there fighting. It's pointless.

I always got a kick out the whole theory of spreading democracy across the mid-east. In a very direct way, aren't we, the US and the rest of our few lackies (UK, etc.) doing the same thing that Saddam did to the people way back when he took power? Saddam pretty much rounded everyone up in a room and one by one pulled them out. The people he didn't have killed, he gave the others the same type of Bush propoganda "You're either with me, or you're against me." Now, here we are doing the same exact thing that Saddam did all those years ago, and we're saying "Here's your democracy for you, either take it or we'll kill you because you have no other choice." Who again of the Iraqi people asked for that?

You know, 9/11 aside, after the fact that I was pissed off that innocent people were killed by it, I think I understood more the intentions of the terroists more so than I did Bush and his band of stooges. I mean, after all, we're the ones who trained Osama and his people to fight against the Russians. And then after they accomplished what we wanted them to, we're the same ones who pretty much said, "Screw you guys, thanks for nothing" and continued to do whatever we wanted in the region because we're completely dependant on their oil.

Stay the fook out of these people's business. Spend those billions upon billions of dollars on this country, on keeping jobs in this country, on lowering health care in this country, on lowering the cost of education in this country. But no...evidently it's more righteous for a few people to make a buttload of money on military contracts, and the importing of oil, and destroying other people's lives so we can turn around and rebuild them for them (gotta love the irony in that), and then those same people can brainwash their core audience that no, these aren't the real important issues that you should be voting about. The real issues after all are those people who don't believe in God, and who marry within the same sex, and that believe in pro-choice, and blah, blah, blah. Those people are the real problem, and those issues are the real issues.

I'll never understand a goverment that's more concerned with wanting to ban the 'killing' of a life before it has the chance to become a life than it is with creating an atmosphere where thirty plus people (who are real people with real lives and real familes) get killed each and every day.

[QUOTE=JustinHolt]I hope he wins, and we leave. And then the country goes back to exactly the way it was before we went there. It's a complete waste...[/QUOTE]

As quickly as we've left Japan, Germany and Korea?

we're leaving germany next year.

[QUOTE=alex cassun]we're leaving germany next year.[/QUOTE]

So soon?

As Tom Lehrer pointed out, we taught them a lesson in 1918, and they've hardly bothered us since then...

[QUOTE=JustinHolt]I always got a kick out the whole theory of spreading democracy across the mid-east. In a very direct way, aren't we, the US and the rest of our few lackies (UK, etc.) doing the same thing that Saddam did to the people way back when he took power? Saddam pretty much rounded everyone up in a room and one by one pulled them out. The people he didn't have killed, he gave the others the same type of Bush propoganda "You're either with me, or you're against me." Now, here we are doing the same exact thing that Saddam did all those years ago, and we're saying "Here's your democracy for you, either take it or we'll kill you because you have no other choice." Who again of the Iraqi people asked for that?

I'll never understand a goverment that's more concerned with wanting to ban the 'killing' of a life before it has the chance to become a life than it is with creating an atmosphere where thirty plus people (who are real people with real lives and real familes) get killed each and every day.[/QUOTE]

I know what you mean and I get so disgusted with this spreading of democracy tunnel vision of world peace, which in many cases is just a facade anyway for spreading capitalism and therefore making more money and power for large western nations. Condie Rice is doing her Euro tour of PR for the operations in Iraq, and to get Europe unified towards this common goal of "spreading democracy." I wonder how she's being received. I wonder what the public think of her and what she's saying. It's a lot of fancy talk I'm sure, without much substance or promises. It's this idealism that follows the same thinking as banning the killing of a life that hasn't become a life yet, while killing a current community of lives. I think it's a narrow idealism.

[QUOTE=JustinHolt]Who again of the Iraqi people asked for that?
So you are saying that they would have prefered to have been killed under Saddams Regime instead?
Let see:
Democracy or be killed
Kiss Saddam's big cock or be killed

I don't think the iraqi people had much choice either way. Besides they are too centered in their religious culture to ask any better. Part of the reason they are happy to be a Theocracy. Atleast now there was the closes thing to a democracy than they had to sucking saddam's cock.

wtf? Osama and his people are victims now?
US trained for mutual interest against the Russians, but they were not buddies.
What the US had to go around to cater to each countries needs so that those countries don't send terrorist to blow up shit?
They weren't buddies, each used each other. In any case US got the worst deal in training Osama Bin Laden.

[QUOTE=Xk3zofrenik]So you are saying that they would have prefered to have been killed under Saddams Regime instead?
Let see:
Democracy or be killed
Kiss Saddam's big cock or be killed

I don't think the iraqi people had much choice either way. Besides they are too centered in their religious culture to ask any better. Part of the reason they are happy to be a Theocracy. Atleast now there was the closes thing to a democracy than they had to sucking saddam's cock.

wtf? Osama and his people are victims now?
US trained for mutual interest against the Russians, but they were not buddies.
What the US had to go around to cater to each countries needs so that those countries don't send terrorist to blow up shit?
They weren't buddies, each used each other. In any case US got the worst deal in training Osama Bin Laden.

[/QUOTE]

I really don't see, this 'positive bullshit spin that certain media tries to put on aside' that the Iraqi people are that much better off with democracy as they were under Saddam. Sure, they might have this vision of granduer for a better America...I mean, Iraq...but the only way that country does not collapse and fall right back into the hands of the stronger is by the US staying there forever (forever translating into 'we can't leave anytime within the coming years'). At least back then they had power, running water, schools, and they knew who their enemy was.

That strong religious foundation that you mentioned, from the beginning of measured time, it's been dicated by killing each other.

Osama and his people are victims in the sense that just like everyone else that America uses and then abandons, trains to kill and then says 'these people are the axis of evil and their practices are barbaric'. Oh really? How'd they ever get that capability on the first place? The knowledge of weapons. Hell, the weapons they are still using. I'm not saying that like every other America who was pissed that they targeted thousands of civilians, that I wouldn't want to see him (Osama) killed for what he did. But what I was saying is that, I can understand to a large degree why so many people hate Americans for this type of 'fuck em and leave em' attitude.

As for the buddy buddy shit...I do remember seeing pictures of that poster boy for the 'Signup to Be the Modern Day Himmler' campain, Mr. Rumsfeld, standing there smiling with Mr. Saddam Hussein twenty or so years ago when Iraq had a purpose for us too.

[QUOTE=JustinHolt]I really don't see, this 'positive bullshit spin that certain media tries to put on aside' that the Iraqi people are that much better off with democracy as they were under Saddam. Sure, they might have this vision of granduer for a better America...I mean, Iraq...but the only way that country does not collapse and fall right back into the hands of the stronger is by the US staying there forever (forever translating into 'we can't leave anytime within the coming years'). At least back then they had power, running water, schools, and they knew who their enemy was.

That strong religious foundation that you mentioned, from the beginning of measured time, it's been dicated by killing each other.

Oh hell no.
I think you are putting this on a all or nothing scale. Things are not like that they need to have a perfect democracy in order to be "better", because quite frankly not even the US has that. Every sistem has its big flaws, and their current state even though very flawed it is still better than the totalitarian democracy they had before. They have more than one true choice. They even ignored the US backed choice. For that choice alone, that they didn't have before, it think it is an improvement. Even if it all falls back onto itself. You see this country wouldn't have known what a real election would be like, not to say that this was all that "real", and now they are closer to that. That to me is "better" than them being locked up on their dictatorship even with a that "cosmetic" democracy.

[QUOTE=Xk3zofrenik]Oh hell no.
I think you are putting this on a all or nothing scale. Things are not like that they need to have a perfect democracy in order to be "better", because quite frankly not even the US has that. Every sistem has its big flaws, and their current state even though very flawed it is still better than the totalitarian democracy they had before. They have more than one true choice. They even ignored the US backed choice. For that choice alone, that they didn't have before, it think it is an improvement. Even if it all falls back onto itself. You see this country wouldn't have known what a real election would be like, not to say that this was all that "real", and now they are closer to that. That to me is "better" than them being locked up on their dictatorship even with a that "cosmetic" democracy.

Again, they were trained for a mutual interest to fuck the russians. If they weren't trained the russians would have probably dominated them with no problem, posing a bigger threath to the US.

These things to me are taken out of historical context, surely they were fuck ups but the world would be on a far worse state if Russia would have expanded. They armed them on the basis of a common enemy.

The US is certainly not a saint and at times it could be the very evil they preach against, however under the context of using countries they pale in comparison to other "empires" of the modern era.

Countries use other countries, that is a fact of the world as it is now. It is a fucked up world, with limited resources.

However i have little empathy for these "victims" In a way they would have been killed if they weren't backed by the US, that the US then dropped them after they stopped being useful doesn't really give them right to blow shit up back. I don't really think they were that much of a victims anyways.[/QUOTE]

I see what you are saying, but again, I'm more inclined to believe that the 'democracy' that we've instilled in Iraq is a sham until we leave that country and it works for itself. I'm not going to give the US the benefit on the doubt on this one either, because even though the Iraqi's picked the guy who wasn't our first choice, do you really think that if that country adopted a dictator/ruler/whatever the hell they are going to call him that was anti-US, that we would stand for it, considering all that we've got invested there? Hell no. To me, the way I read it, it's kind of like a parade where the US is more or less saying, 'well, we'll let you put on this facade that you are picking who you want, but we still hold the power over you.'

As for the Afghan people...I think their major resentment towards us after the Russian war had more to do with what we didn't do for them after we used them than for the fact that we used them in the first place.

I know countries get used, and that that is a part of history, and a part of war, and so on. But just like the birth of Nazi Germany and the treaty that crippled Germany as a nation after WWI, when you are left with nothing to work with, you tend to have every reason to hate the people and want revenge against the people who left you that way. I never wanted it to seem as if I was on the verge on running out and joining those fuckers, but I was saying where I can understand to a degree where their gripe came from.

But what I want to know is what happens next...when the countries who are really trying to make/obtain WMD's, what are we going to do when they start to pose a threat? Start a war on three, maybe four different fronts? Pull troops out of Afghan or Iraq and stand to lose everything you've worked for? Start back up the draft and throw more people into a stupid war? Why, for once, can't we just get a President whose only agenda is how to improve their own country the way they seemingly want to improve everyone else's first.

[QUOTE=JustinHolt]
But what I want to know is what happens next...when the countries who are really trying to make/obtain WMD's, what are we going to do when they start to pose a threat? Start a war on three, maybe four different fronts? Pull troops out of Afghan or Iraq and stand to lose everything you've worked for? Start back up the draft and throw more people into a stupid war? Why, for once, can't we just get a President whose only agenda is how to improve their own country the way they seemingly want to improve everyone else's first.[/QUOTE]

Stay tuned on the international thing. A new Iran conflict might be brewing.

The problem is that not even the US is independent of the world, while you might elect a president that indeed takes care of its own country rather than start wars, might indeed damage its own country's future by neglecting the international power struggle.

There will be a power struggle and even more so since more nations will have nuclear capacity in the upcoming decades, what you will have is dozens of countries with the power to blow everything.

On that context you might understand the urgence of now, sort of play the superpower, even if it is totally wrong.

Countries like North Korea, would indeed use this power if they have to, they are scary fanatics as well. What would a domestic-tunnel-vision president do in that case?

If fundamentalist who believe suicide attacks are grounds for sainthood get ahold of nukes, what can you do?

Hey, i am not saying the current course of action is the right one, but i am not really quick to condone it given the future scenarios.

Let see:

current unenployment vs. shitload of countries able to develop/or have nukes

domestic vs. international

On the other hand this constant war scenario is not very unlikely. The Iraq invasion has shown that the country silently has moved along a war, and has go on about their business, it still costs a lot, but they have moved along.

There are no big protest, and hell even the president won.

I think is the end of an era were two or three superpowers wouldn't face off because they had much to lose. Now all these soon to be nuclear contenders have very little to lose, and a lot to blow up.

What can you do then?

[QUOTE=Xk3zofrenik]

Let see:

current unenployment vs. shitload of countries able to develop/or have nukes

domestic vs. international

On the other hand this constant war scenario is not very unlikely. The Iraq invasion has shown that the country silently has moved along a war, and has go on about their business, it still costs a lot, but they have moved along.

There are no big protest, and hell even the president won.

I think is the end of an era were two or three superpowers wouldn't face off because they had much to lose. Now all these soon to be nuclear contenders have very little to lose, and a lot to blow up.

What can you do then?[/QUOTE]

If a country was to pose a real threat to begin with, then maybe I would be more inclined to agree. But Bush's vendetta against Iraq started before 9/11, and his administrations excuse for war, the WMD thing, was never founded, was abanonded early on by those as high up as Powell, and ended up costing the US in access of 1 Billion and dozens of American lives on some fruitless search and that no one knew would find anything, including the UN, which is why the Idiot In Charge had to take his 'you're either with or us against us' stance...

There are no large scale protests to this war because as a society that isn't practiced anymore. The fact of the matter is, even though he lost, that Kerry got 49 million or so votes against a wartime incumbent President (where no wartime President has never lost a re-election) that, I think, was a lot of people's way of speaking out against the war. But again, when more of the country cares about things such as gay marriage, abortion, and contradictory morals, than no, there isn't going to be a change.

But getting to your point about just sitting back and watching these 'other' type countries develop nuclear weapons, well that is exactly my point. Why did we have to square off against a threat that was non-existent, when all along North Korea and Iran were the two real threats to begin with? I don't think the US should just sit back and watch dangerous nations build up stockpiles of WMD's, but they sure as hell shouldn't have spent all this time, money, energy, and human lives against a threat that wasn't even a threat...

The US as one nation can't be the world's police by themselves...

As for the nation moving on here...look at the deficit that Bush has piled up since he took office. I don't really see how the nation is moving 'on' in any positive way...

[QUOTE=JustinHolt]

1.But getting to your point about just sitting back and watching these 'other' type countries develop nuclear weapons, well that is exactly my point. Why did we have to square off against a threat that was non-existent, when all along North Korea and Iran were the two real threats to begin with? I don't think the US should just sit back and watch dangerous nations build up stockpiles of WMD's, but they sure as hell shouldn't have spent all this time, money, energy, and human lives against a threat that wasn't even a threat...

2.The US as one nation can't be the world's police by themselves......[/QUOTE]

as for number one... you have to be completely insane to truly think that SH didn't have WMD's or was trying to develop them. he had years to transfer them to any one of those other rogue states. and as far as SH not being a threat...wtf... he has known connections with terrorists and had funded them in the past

as for number two... sure we can. have you not seen TEAM AMERICA. maybe you were offended by the flick because all your hero's in the Freedom Actors Guild were blown up..

[QUOTE=JustinHolt]If a country was to pose a real threat to begin with, then maybe I would be more inclined to agree. But Bush's vendetta against Iraq started before 9/11, and his administrations excuse for war, the WMD thing, was never founded, was abanonded early on by those as high up as Powell, and ended up costing the US in access of 1 Billion and dozens of American lives on some fruitless search and that no one knew would find anything, including the UN, which is why the Idiot In Charge had to take his 'you're either with or us against us' stance...

There are no large scale protests to this war because as a society that isn't practiced anymore. The fact of the matter is, even though he lost, that Kerry got 49 million or so votes against a wartime incumbent President (where no wartime President has never lost a re-election) that, I think, was a lot of people's way of speaking out against the war. But again, when more of the country cares about things such as gay marriage, abortion, and contradictory morals, than no, there isn't going to be a change.

But getting to your point about just sitting back and watching these 'other' type countries develop nuclear weapons, well that is exactly my point. Why did we have to square off against a threat that was non-existent, when all along North Korea and Iran were the two real threats to begin with? I don't think the US should just sit back and watch dangerous nations build up stockpiles of WMD's, but they sure as hell shouldn't have spent all this time, money, energy, and human lives against a threat that wasn't even a threat...

The US as one nation can't be the world's police by themselves...

As for the nation moving on here...look at the deficit that Bush has piled up since he took office. I don't really see how the nation is moving 'on' in any positive way...[/QUOTE]

Yeah the Iraq thing was really a cover up for something else, however i do think they thought they would indeed find WMD, altought i think that wasn't the purpose of the war.

however under that context it makes it logic why they went after Iraq instead of Iran and NK, also that the president badly needed a war he could "win". Otherwise i don't think the idiot in charge would be dumb enough to get in a war without WMD, but then again who knows.

I shouldn't have used "moved on", however still the country hasn't come to a complete halt because of the war, yes there is deficit piling up, however i don't think it has gotten to the point where it is going to mayorly halt the whole economy, it is indeed going to drag it for years to come.

However it would be sad that people don't do voice their opinions other ways other than elections, especially waiting for the democratic party to take the next sucker name out of the hat. I do think people voiced out their opinions against bush, but only because i doubt that those 49 million were all in for Kerry.

I don't know, it can get ugly, but still i think the nukes are a big big concern.

[QUOTE=JustinHolt]I hope he wins, and we leave. And then the country goes back to exactly the way it was before we went there. It's a complete waste...[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Chixulub]As quickly as we've left Japan, Germany and Korea?[/QUOTE]

Well done Chix.

[QUOTE=marte]Well done Chix.[/QUOTE]

I don't see the merit in that comparison...Iraq against Germany, Korea, and Japan.

WWII was an entirely matter unto it's own, where every major country in the world had a stake in it. Germany was a country that, aside from getting greedy and spreading itself too thin, could have ruled the world. We weren't the only country 'occupying that nation either' Russia had a pretty tight grip on half of it, which is why we really stayed there in the first place, to ward off the spread of communism. Japan was a country that directly attacked us, on our shores. Korea, I don't know enough about that war to make an honest judgement, but I do know that tensions in that region dicatated that we had to go to war.

[QUOTE=Xk3zofrenik]

Yeah the Iraq thing was really a cover up for something else

however under that context it makes it logic why they went after Iraq instead of Iran and NK, also that the president badly needed a war he could "win".

[/QUOTE]

I totally agree.

And he has his war that he could win, and have the backing of other nations. Afghanistan. But he didn't want Afgahinstan. He always wanted Iraq. And I don't think he can 'win' this war though, even though he and his lackies think they have already won.

As for the demonstrating, and hoping that elections aren't our only way of doing that. It is a sad fact of modern life I think. Any generation younger than that which grew up with the Vietnam war has never showed an inclination as to be one who protests for anything, except perhaps, the 'black community' which I think we could learn a lot from.

Too many people now are assuming to much of politicians that we know really nothing about. The last election showed that. We're all just one big contradiction, electing people that we hope will change our communities for the better, but really doing nothing to assure that they do, except for watching television and bitching about all that's going wrong in the world.

[QUOTE=JustinHolt]I don't see the merit in that comparison...Iraq against Germany, Korea, and Japan.[/QUOTE]

We fought wars with and occupied all three countries. We've had troops in Germany and Japan since 1945, and enforced strict limits on their level of armament. They are defacto colonies. And we maintain a hostile front stalemate in Korea, and have ever since the cease fire in 1953, the first of the modern undeclared wars. So while I hate to give scumbags like Barbara Boxer any credit, questions about a pull out of Iraq are legitimate.

The only times the U.S. has typically withdrawn from such situations is in the case of defacto surrender of the cause (Vietnam and Somalia), or a small-scale goal (the invasion of Panama, where the goal was to reel in an errant CIA goon, Manuel Noriega).

[QUOTE=JustinHolt]WWII was an entirely matter unto it's own, where every major country in the world had a stake in it. Germany was a country that, aside from getting greedy and spreading itself too thin, could have ruled the world. We weren't the only country 'occupying that nation either' Russia had a pretty tight grip on half of it, which is why we really stayed there in the first place, to ward off the spread of communism. Japan was a country that directly attacked us, on our shores. Korea, I don't know enough about that war to make an honest judgement, but I do know that tensions in that region dicatated that we had to go to war.[/QUOTE]

1) It was definitely not an entity unto its own. The imbalanced settling of accounts at the end of WWI, U.S. failure to recognize Soviet ambitions in the 1920s and 1930s, our refusal to consider the implications of Franco, and our willful ignorance of Japan's situation led to WWII.

2) Hitler wasn't the only Jew-killing dictator trying to set up an empire. Stalin wanted the same thing, basically. Of course, Russia wouldn't have held half of Germany hostage along with the rest of Eastern Europe if we hadn't been pussies about fighting Stalin.

3) If you think it was mandatory that we go to war in Korea to fight Communist aggression, then we shouldn't have pulled out of Vietnam and we should have also locked horns with Russia and invaded Cambodia when Pol Pot started his little genocide. We've turned our backs while millions are killed, and we've involved ourselves in never-ending military commitments in other cases. Expedience tends to dictate which approach we take.

4) The reason I made the comment about Germany, Korea and Japan, is Bush specifically says we are not an imperial power, and cites Germany and Japan as examples of how we are NOT colonizing the world. Sorry, but that's on a par with saying we're against using nuclear weapons because we don't have them and have never used them on civilian populations.

In any case, the real reason we went to war in Iraq is probably neither the stupid, simple-minded answers the Administration is feeding us, OR the stupid, simple-minded response of the Democrats. In fifty years, documents will be declassified and maybe someone will bother to dig out the truth and let people in on it. It was only five or six years ago that the U.S. Government acknowledged that it might have been a tad reckless to do all that above-ground nuclear testing all over the Southwest and South Pacific.

[QUOTE=Chixulub]

1) It was definitely not an entity unto its own. The imbalanced settling of accounts at the end of WWI, U.S. failure to recognize Soviet ambitions in the 1920s and 1930s, our refusal to consider the implications of Franco, and our willful ignorance of Japan's situation led to WWII.

[/QUOTE]

My saying WWII was an entity unto it's own was in reference to how it was the last major battle of that scale where everyone was involved for varying reasons. I totally understand what you are saying, and I agree with your specifics.

As for some of the other stuff, Hitler in particular, the US intitially didn't want anything to do with him. Jews were segregated against here in the US, and I don't think the US would have had as many issues with the Nazi's if they hadn't kept sinking our ships with their U-Boats. Germany could have done a lot more damage than they did too to us, and the US could have got caught with their pants down so many times on the east coast that it might have changed a lot of things.

But that aside, although it may be wrong, I see Iraq as I saw Somalia. It's more large scale now as we have so much invested, but it seems like people in that region win their own freedom through killing and fear. The only way that Iraq doesn't go back to the way it was is having a strong US force stay there indefinetely. Do we keep doing that, losing our men and women's lives everyday for that reason? To me, hell no. Let them kill each other if that is the way they want to live. All we did was give everyone in that region more reason to hate us, and want to kill us. Like we needed that.

I'm all for letting the UN do what it was set up to do.

[QUOTE=JustinHolt]

I'm all for letting the UN do what it was set up to do.[/QUOTE]

I'm all for relocating UN headquarters to Baghdad and for the U.S. pulling out of both.