I don't belive it

[pwmartin]

Propping up democracy in Iraq, whether or not you think its feasible or right, would have a much greater stabilizing effect in the world than propping up democracy in Liberia.

I hear what you're saying about the numbers of the coalition, but I think we have to give some credit to the number of Aussies and Brits and Poles and Hungarians, etc, that did show up, especially given the amount of anti-war pressure that exist(ed) in those countries. Many of that coalition have rarely sent troops anywhere.

The U.N peacekeeping forces are often about that size, anyway.

By highlighting the U.N.'s complacency in Rwanda, etc, I'm not exonerating the U.S. I'm just saying that the U.S.'s decision not to let the U.N. run its foreign policy concerning Iraq has opened our eyes to some of the endemic problems of the U.N. system.

 

[A_Wanderer]

That 100,000 figure was bullshit and is being taken as an article of faith by the true believers (a good article in slate demolished it as well as quite a few blogs, chicago boyz for example), it was 5 times that of anti-war sites, the margin of error was between 8,000 and 190,000 and the sampling by using only Iraqi interviewers and 33 clusturs was insufficient to make any accurate predictions. The figures from Fallujah alone using their method yielded a death toll greater than the number of people living within the city. Ignoring that for that figure to work 170 or so civilians would have to be killed violently every day and yet we hear nothing about this, the expose of these war crimes cannot be seen in the press, evidence for these figures does not exist. The lancet has a history of some poor efforts (thinking of the whole MMR controversy with Wakefield) and this report rushed out days before the US election seems no different. Most would put the figure at around 20,000. And I do believe that that one finds that this many casualties is less than those who would have killed by Saddam during the same period due to the regime and its manipulation of UN sanctions.

Iraqi democracy is in many ways more important in the GWOT today because unlike Sierra Leone or East Timor (a fledgling democracy that is recieving a lot of help) Iraq is an Arab Muslim state with a large Sunni and Shiite population, if the venture is sucessful then it will be a catalyst for change in both Persian Iran and the Arab states. I am not saying that people are more or less deserving of liberty, simply saying that the US has an agenda of neutralising political Islam and if you are going to use that many resources to craft such a state then do it where it counts.

 

[Irvine511]

Iraqi democracy is in many ways more important in the GWOT today because unlike Sierra Leone or East Timor (a fledgling democracy that is recieving a lot of help) Iraq is an Arab Muslim state with a large Sunni and Shiite population, if the venture is sucessful then it will be a catalyst for change in both Persian Iran and the Arab states. I am not saying that people are more or less deserving of liberty, simply saying that the US has an agenda of neutralising political Islam and if you are going to use that many resources to craft such a state then do it where it counts.

yes, yes, yes. i can agree with you on this -- as a goal, it is a good one, and the best way to combat terrorism is the creation of a middle class where people have something to lose so they have a stake in their own stability. (we could also talk about the reduction of US dependence upon foreign oil, but that irks republicans because it might mean, god forbid, we drive our SUVs a little bit less). but as i have said before, the people in power in washington are precisely the wrong people to do this. why we don't have more troops on the ground (and i say this as an anti-war voter) is beyond me, except for the fact that personal agendas are (and have) interfering with everything you have said in the above paragraph. i also would add that you're not taking into account specific things that the Bush people wanted to "prove" with the Iraq invasion, and in their rush to make these points, they have butchered our chances of success:

1. the US can invade and occupy a country with less than 100,000 troops
2. this ability in #1 should serve as a warning to Iran, N. Korea, and whoever else pisses us off -- basically showing off 21st century American military might
3. the US needs to answer no questions to its allies
4. the US does not need it's traditional european allies
5. the US is an Empire, and almost literally, on a mission from God -- we do only good in the world, and have since WW2
6. as an Empire, the US creates reality, everyone else reacts

there are more, but i need to get to work! sorry ....