in case you thought Patraeus was apolitical ...

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Firstly I do not think that you can point to Baathist Iraq as a model of consensual government, Hussein was long way from being a benign dictator (the opinion polls from Iraqis show that the majority approve that Saddam is removed and that life in Iraq is better without him in power - while at the same time disaproving of US presence in the country and terrorism). The situation that Iraq was in through the 1990's where it was boxed in militarily to enforce a regime of sanctions was bad; it cannot be matched to countries such as Pakistan or China where that program of destruction had been pursued.

As Sting2 would point out the violence in Iraq is concentrated around Baghdad, in the absence of foreign forces most of the country (at least the ethnically seperate parts) can be peaceful). Any policy for withdrawing troops should be matched with one that can achieve a stability in Iraq without a bloodbath - now if that is a referendum on partition, installing a dictator (which wouldn't surprise given the langauge coming from both US parties ) or leaving the Iraqi government to seek regional partners in Iran and Syria that should be the focus of the discussion. But it isn't because Iraqs long term situation is in nobodies political interest because as soon as foreign forces leave it's not their problem or responsibility for what happens.

I completely recognize that Hussein's rule in Iraq was one that resulted in a lot of terrible things. I agree that Hussein did not rule the country well.

But the entire war strategy didn't add up. It was on the basis of Weapons of Mass Destruction, not because he was a cruel dictator. It was on the basis that Hussein was a THREAT TO THE US, not to his people.

What I'm saying is that we can't go in individually and change the Middle East to what we want it to be. Which is what this war ended up doing once the WMD trail went dry. We can't create stability without having a much larger force there. We can't have a much larger force there because we can't use that many resources to stabilize something that isn't a threat to our country.

[A_Wanderer]

Look at the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, it covers a lot more than just the undeclared WMD/prograns.

Want to attack the policy then chase after the hypocricy, particulary in the cases of Saudi Arabia and Egypt where the US pays to protect and spread the problems that it is supposedly trying to remedy in Iraq; at the end of the day nothing can happen until theres no interest in keeping dictators.

[AEON]

Originally posted by Infinitum98


Yea you are right. But I thought I'd just start with those to see what the neo-cons have to say about that.

Are you saying you would support the invasion of these countries?

[BVS]

Originally posted by AEON


So, if less American were dying a month you would support the Iraq war?

Talk about failed logic...

[BVS]

Originally posted by AEON


Are you saying you would support the invasion of these countries?

[AEON]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar

Like I have said before - I hear a lot of talk about social justice around the globe. I see bumper stickers like "Free Tibet." And there is a lot of criticism that the UN did too little to stop the Darfur tragedy.

I'm just wondering how people plan on accomplishing these rather noble goals without at least SOME military force.

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by AEON
Like I have said before - I hear a lot of talk about social justice around the globe. I see bumper stickers like "Free Tibet." And there is a lot of criticism that the UN did too little to stop the Darfur tragedy.

I'm just wondering how people plan on accomplishing these rather noble goals without at least SOME military force.

It helps to have strategy along with said military force.

[BVS]

Originally posted by AEON


Like I have said before - I hear a lot of talk about social justice around the globe. I see bumper stickers like "Free Tibet." And there is a lot of criticism that the UN did too little to stop the Darfur tragedy.

I'm just wondering how people plan on accomplishing these rather noble goals without at least SOME military force.

I'm laughing because you seem to not be able to read sarcasm...

Take a look at history, has all change been due to the military? I wonder how many lives would have been saved if people weren't so willing to "bomb for democracy"?

[AEON]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar

I wonder how many lives would have been saved if people weren't so willing to "bomb for democracy"?

I also wonder how many lives were needlessly lost because we didn't bomb soon enough (World War II and over 72 MILLION lives immediately comes to mind)

[AEON]

Originally posted by phillyfan26


It helps to have strategy along with said military force.

This we agree on.

[deep]

Originally posted by AEON


Are you saying you would support the invasion of these countries?

do you think it is possible that because you are in the business of only working with hammers

that you may tend to view things as nails?

[AEON]

Originally posted by deep


do you think it is possible that because you are in the business of only working with hammers

that you may tend to view things as nails?

Or I may have joined the business of working with hammers BECAUSE I see all of these nails

[anitram]

AEON, as a supporter of democracy, would you be fine with the Saudis electing an al-Qaeda leader as Prime Minister (provided we bombed them out of their monarchy) and Iraq electing al-Sadr as theirs?

I mean, the Shiites could most certainly do so in a democratic process, as an expression of their will. Would you be supportive of that or is it then time to remove him a la Saddam?

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Look at the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, it covers a lot more than just the undeclared WMD/prograns.

Want to attack the policy then chase after the hypocricy, particulary in the cases of Saudi Arabia and Egypt where the US pays to protect and spread the problems that it is supposedly trying to remedy in Iraq; at the end of the day nothing can happen until theres no interest in keeping dictators.

you're not resurrecting the infamous 1441, are you?

[A_Wanderer]

No, but the argument that Iraq was invaded exclusively on the basis of WMD is demonstrably false.

[AEON]

Originally posted by anitram
AEON, as a supporter of democracy, would you be fine with the Saudis electing an al-Qaeda leader as Prime Minister (provided we bombed them out of their monarchy) and Iraq electing al-Sadr as theirs?

I mean, the Shiites could most certainly do so in a democratic process, as an expression of their will. Would you be supportive of that or is it then time to remove him a la Saddam?

That's a good question. It seems that if an elected leader changes a democracy into "something other" - then it fails to remain a democracy.

[Vincent Vega]

Originally posted by AEON


I also wonder how many lives were needlessly lost because we didn't bomb soon enough (World War II and over 72 MILLION lives immediately comes to mind)

The highest estimate to my knowledge is 60 million, but anyways, it makes me feel sick and sad how you equate WWII to these current wars.

Originally posted by AEON


That's a good question. It seems that if an elected leader changes a democracy into "something other" - then it fails to remain a democracy.

Who says he changes it? Only because his politics don't reflect on what America wishes?

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by A_Wanderer
No, but the argument that Iraq was invaded exclusively on the basis of WMD is demonstrably false.

but it's demonstrably true that the language used by the Bushies throughout 2002 when speaking to the American public about this focused almost exclusively on WMDs, mushroom clouds, and "like we saw on 9-11."

it might not be factual that we invaded exclusively on WMDs, but it is truthful that we did.

you were never, ever going to get the American public to send their sons and daughters to leave limbs in the sand under the premise of removing a very bad man from power. they needed to create a sense of urgency, and a sense of threat, from Manhattan to Seattle, and they chose to focus on WMDs in order to do so.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by AEON


That's a good question. It seems that if an elected leader changes a democracy into "something other" - then it fails to remain a democracy.

so where does it stop?

is it possible that some cultures can live and thrive by a system other than a liberal democracy?

you do realize you sound *exactly* like a late 19th century british aristocrat.

[AEON]

Originally posted by Vincent Vega


The highest estimate to my knowledge is 60 million, but anyways, it makes me feel sick and sad how you equate WWII to these current wars.



Who says he changes it? Only because his politics don't reflect on what America wishes?

Well - France doesn't do what we wish and we don't bomb it. The point is that if a democratically elected leader turns the country into a dictatorship after he takes office, it is no longer a democracy but a dictatorship.