Neo-Cons... your leaders are effin morons

[The Dark Side of Will]

Bush the Elder recognized that if we invaded Iraq during the first Gulf War, we'd have ended up EXACTLY where we are now...

I completely disagree. It's all speculation but the global political climate was much different then. Many countries already had troops in the region. The threat of Saddam was fresh on their minds. To me the elder Bush not going into Baghdad was the equivalent of Saddam not going into Tehran.

I believe the words Bush the Elder used were "No valid exit strategy". I agree with EB, he did the appropriate thing.

[EBSB52]

Bush the Elder recognized that if we invaded Iraq during the first Gulf War, we'd have ended up EXACTLY where we are now...

I completely disagree. It's all speculation but the global political climate was much different then. Many countries already had troops in the region. The threat of Saddam was fresh on their minds. To me the elder Bush not going into Baghdad was the equivalent of Saddam not going into Tehran.

I believe the words Bush the Elder used were "No valid exit strategy". I agree with EB, he did the appropriate thing.

So GHW Bush said of his son's Iraq War, "No valid exit strategy?"

GHW would have been recognized as one of the best presidents had it not been for having to mop up after the messy Reaganomics by having to raise taxes to eventually aid in curbing the debt. GWH and Clinton weren't that far away from the center on opposite sides, which is why they get along so well now.

It will be interesting to see how the next pres handles the mounting medical issues along with veretical debt increases. Taxes will have to raise.

[V8Mikie]

There is always a valid exit strategy if you can design one. Basically do the opposite of what was done currently. Focus on stability first and foremost then worry about, in the words of Agresto, developing a rather complex "Jeffersonian Democracy." We did the reverse and it blew up in our faces. Kinda hard to rebuild a country when the infrastructure has been looted and burned and people are scared to support democracy.

I have read two books on the subject, "Imperial Life in the Emerald City" and "Assassins Gate." I recommend the both, the Imperial Life one is probably better. One prevalent theme I got out of them was that this was a winnable situation but we severely squandered it. It was, however, doable.

[Mach10]

You're talking about setting up a militant autocracy first, and then phasing in Democracy by force...

Newsflash: there already WAS a military autocracy, and it didn't work out so great that time, either.

There *IS* no way to do what it is that you (the people) are trying to do.

Political reform MUST come from within. A third party ramming a political ideology down the people's throat with the intention of reform will fail. It's always failed in the past, and it won't succeed in the forseable future.

The historically, the viable options are to a) kill the vast majority of them, and annex it, b) pull back, fund the more militant rebel elements--and possibly stir up a civil war, c) rig the election, or d) Not have gone in the first place and let them sort it out for themselves.

[The Dark Side of Will]

We could send Britain the bill. This is their mess. When they were building the British Empire, they'd pit local factions against eachother via subterfuge so that the area they were trying to conquer would not be able to put up a unified resistance. That's why we have the mixed populations in single countries that we have today. We should just carve the country up into sections in which the people can get along.

[Mach10]

Imperialism didn't work out so great for the UK either... It grew, and grew, and grew, but then then it started losing lots and lots of money, and couldn't afford to beat back the rebels.

Both the UK and the US are responsible for the mess in the Mid-East. The UK set the stage for ethnic tensions by influencing many of the borders, and the US joined in, together setting the stage for the exploitation of the resulting economically destitute--but resource rich--countries.

[V8Mikie]

You're talking about setting up a militant autocracy first, and then phasing in Democracy by force...

Newsflash: there already WAS a military autocracy, and it didn't work out so great that time, either.

There *IS* no way to do what it is that you (the people) are trying to do.

Political reform MUST come from within. A third party ramming a political ideology down the people's throat with the intention of reform will fail. It's always failed in the past, and it won't succeed in the forseable future.

The reform WOULD come from within. If you had done some research you would know about the Iraqi exiles ready to start a new government. You would know the Shiites were ready for a new form of government and supported capitalistic/democratic ideas. You would know the Kurds already had an autonomous government and were willing to join a larger, unified one for the good of the country.

The U.S. would have merely played a supporting role. Even the most liberal people support this because of Iraqi suffering and realizing they couldn't have done it alone after years of tyranny. Clearly, they needed our help to get rid of Saddam and his band of thugs, like Germany needed our help to get rid of Hitler. It's not that easy to overthrow a dictator especially given the modern technology used to sniff out potential plots.

[EBSB52]

You're talking about setting up a militant autocracy first, and then phasing in Democracy by force...

Newsflash: there already WAS a military autocracy, and it didn't work out so great that time, either.

There *IS* no way to do what it is that you (the people) are trying to do.

Political reform MUST come from within. A third party ramming a political ideology down the people's throat with the intention of reform will fail. It's always failed in the past, and it won't succeed in the forseable future.

The reform WOULD come from within. If you had done some research you would know about the Iraqi exiles ready to start a new government. You would know the Shiites were ready for a new form of government and supported capitalistic/democratic ideas. You would know the Kurds already had an autonomous government and were willing to join a larger, unified one for the good of the country.

The U.S. would have merely played a supporting role. Even the most liberal people support this because of Iraqi suffering and realizing they couldn't have done it alone after years of tyranny. Clearly, they needed our help to get rid of Saddam and his band of thugs, like Germany needed our help to get rid of Hitler. It's not that easy to overthrow a dictator especially given the modern technology used to sniff out potential plots.

There's gonna be no peace there via civil war. The Shiite and suni and Kurds are red and black ants living on the same mound and us comming in and siding with the Kurds helps tons (not). We put them in government, so there will be no peace now.

As for the Hitler comparison, a bit diff since Hitler was branching out and wanted to immediatley take over all of Germany. Yes, Saddam did invade Kuwait, but when he got spanked he retreated. Germany and Italy formally declared war against us, Japan created an act of war against us, quite diferent.

[Mach10]

The reform WOULD come from within. If you had done some research you would know about the Iraqi exiles ready to start a new government. You would know the Shiites were ready for a new form of government and supported capitalistic/democratic ideas. You would know the Kurds already had an autonomous government and were willing to join a larger, unified one for the good of the country.

You have to be shitting me. Seriously.... you have to be fucking SHITTING me.

You tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about, that I haven't researched Iraq, and that the US version of peace is guaranteed on some kind of historic precedent?

1933
1939
1941
1947
1958
1963
1966
1968

These are the dates in which the Iraq governing body has been overthrown; by military coup or external invasion.

There were THREE ruling parties in Iraq's entire history that were able to maintain some semblence of civil order. First, by the Ottomans(who held the entire region for centuries), and second, by the British after the treaty of Sevres and until the second world war.

The THIRD stable government was the Baathist party headed by our old friend Saddam.

Iraq is made up of three main ethnographic elements; Shi'a muslims, Sunni muslims, and the Kurds. Both the Shi'a and the Sunni despise each other, and they both despise the Kurds. Yeah, a real winning contender for peace.

Yeah, great plan. I'm sure Fox would buy it, and air it right next to "Animal Kumitae: Badger vs. Fox vs. Wolverine"

We could watch the Sunnis and Shi'as band together and puree the kurds in about 25 minutes... And after they were done cleansing the nation, we could watch them exterminate each other.

It's a solution of sorts... Sort of... I guess...

The U.S. would have merely played a supporting role. Even the most liberal people support this because of Iraqi suffering and realizing they couldn't have done it alone after years of tyranny. Clearly, they needed our help to get rid of Saddam and his band of thugs, like Germany needed our help to get rid of Hitler. It's not that easy to overthrow a dictator especially given the modern technology used to sniff out potential plots.

I can't even believe you are comparing Saddam Hussain to Adolph Hitler.

Seriously, I can't.

And I can't believe that you honestly believe the US did Iraq some kind of favor. Are you aware that GW's little war here has cost the iraqi CIVILIANS an estimated 650,000 lives?

Maybe you should pull your head out of your ass before trying to lecture on history. You might be up to snuff on how to shoot a gun, march, whatever... But clearly you don't have a fucking clue about history--beyond what you swallow whole from CNN.

[V8Mikie]

I can't believe you are dumb enough (wait, no I can) to think I was comparing Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler (note spelling corrections). I merely said both countries needed help getting rid of a dictator, an action you seem to think is so easily accomplished. Also please point out where I said American peace is guaranteed, until then please stop putting words in my mouth, thanks.

The Sunni's and the Shi'ites do hate each other, mainly because the Sunni's sided with Saddam and benefited from his power. However, had we not forbid firka ranked Baathists and above from holding any time of real job in the new Iraqi government a unified central government could have existed between the two factions of Islam. Forget about the Kurds, they have their own government and have lived free of Saddam and didn't/don't need the help of the Sunni's or Shi'ites. They were doing us a huge favor by conceding power in the sake of a unified Iraq. Contrary to the nonsense you said in your post, the Shi'ites and Sunni's could not take down the Kurds. Saddam tried after 1991 but the no fly zones Americans patrolled help keep them safe from air attacks and they had a well trained militia to defend against ground attacks.

Pg 284 from Imperial Life in the Emerald City...

"Many Iraqi's I met wanted leaders who would overcome divisions of race and sect, not those who pandered to differences."

It's true! Believe it or not muslims are not the sect driven mongrels many in the west think them to be. They can work together if given the opportunity, but thats where the American government failed. They appointed weak Sunni's to the governing council and they were outnumbered by politically driven Shi'ites looking out for themselves first and foremost. The Kurds appointed to the governing council were no different. The Sunni's were obviously not going to stand for it resulting in the insurgency.

Page 275 from Imperial Life in the Emerald City...

[regarding Shiite cleric al-Sadr's rise to fame] "Sunnis in Fallujah and other Sunni-dominated cities in central Iraq, who had deemed al-Sadr a troublemaker, began to laud him as a hero. Each side was drawing strength from the other"

Here we see radical Shi'ites and Sunnis supporting each other! Who knew?!

Kurdish peshmerga even fought alongside US forces to liberate Kirkuk and Mosul. They were willing to help form a united government.

Page 243 from Imperial Life in the Emerald City...

[after the Kurds told the CPA/Bremer they wanted to maintain their own government separate from Iraq's federal government but a bargain was struck]
"the Kurds would accept the central governments authority over a number of issues, including fiscal, defense, and foreign policy.


Clearly, the Iraqi's were willing to form a united government if the right steps would have been taken initially and the right people chosen for the Governing Council. Now aside from childish name calling and accusations, what proof do you have that forming a government in Iraq would not be possible?

[V8Mikie]

As for the Hitler comparison, a bit diff since Hitler was branching out and wanted to immediatley take over all of Germany. Yes, Saddam did invade Kuwait, but when he got spanked he retreated. Germany and Italy formally declared war against us, Japan created an act of war against us, quite diferent.

Don't forget he also invaded Iran and would have succeeded if he wasn't the biggest dumb ass in the world. His army stopped at the gates of Tehran, inexplicably.

I wasn't comparing the two in the least, merely saying both were dictators and both of their countries needed help to get rid of them by way of military action.

[EBSB52]

As for the Hitler comparison, a bit diff since Hitler was branching out and wanted to immediatley take over all of Germany. Yes, Saddam did invade Kuwait, but when he got spanked he retreated. Germany and Italy formally declared war against us, Japan created an act of war against us, quite diferent.

Don't forget he also invaded Iran and would have succeeded if he wasn't the biggest dumb ass in the world. His army stopped at the gates of Tehran, inexplicably.

I wasn't comparing the two in the least, merely saying both were dictators and both of their countries needed help to get rid of them by way of military action.

It's a bit of a microcosm to worry about which countries have dictators who are evil and if they are evil enough to neccessitate removal. thought the issue with Iraq had to do with WMD's, hence invade to find them. Quite obviously it was just a facade to enter, that is needless to say. So if we are now in the business of scumbag removal, then we have opened ourselves up to all kinds of terrorism in teh name (lie) of terrorism control. Can't really bitch when we become the target, can we? Don't we have better things to be doing than making ourselves targets for all of evility to aim toward? Don't we have a monsterous debt, hence our $ is shrinking and future economically unsure? Do we need to exacerbate it wit this notion of ridding the world of scum? Is it, (A) doable, and (B) worth it? When we're economically destroyed the country should turn around and realize Reagan/Bush/Bush got us there, but will it matter?

Several years of Republicanness preceeded the Great Depression, likely leading to there being what, 5 or 6 consecutive terms of Dems; perhaps we're on the brink of that right now.

[V8Mikie]

As for the Hitler comparison, a bit diff since Hitler was branching out and wanted to immediatley take over all of Germany. Yes, Saddam did invade Kuwait, but when he got spanked he retreated. Germany and Italy formally declared war against us, Japan created an act of war against us, quite diferent.

Don't forget he also invaded Iran and would have succeeded if he wasn't the biggest dumb ass in the world. His army stopped at the gates of Tehran, inexplicably.

I wasn't comparing the two in the least, merely saying both were dictators and both of their countries needed help to get rid of them by way of military action.

It's a bit of a microcosm to worry about which countries have dictators who are evil and if they are evil enough to neccessitate removal. thought the issue with Iraq had to do with WMD's, hence invade to find them. Quite obviously it was just a facade to enter, that is needless to say. So if we are now in the business of scumbag removal, then we have opened ourselves up to all kinds of terrorism in teh name (lie) of terrorism control. Can't really bitch when we become the target, can we? Don't we have better things to be doing than making ourselves targets for all of evility to aim toward? Don't we have a monsterous debt, hence our $ is shrinking and future economically unsure? Do we need to exacerbate it wit this notion of ridding the world of scum? Is it, (A) doable, and (B) worth it? When we're economically destroyed the country should turn around and realize Reagan/Bush/Bush got us there, but will it matter?

Several years of Republicanness preceeded the Great Depression, likely leading to there being what, 5 or 6 consecutive terms of Dems; perhaps we're on the brink of that right now.

True, the WMD thing was all smoke and mirrors. I found out who was behind most of that, Doug Feith (jew), Ahmed Chalabi and his band of merry exiles (it was personal to them), and Paul Wolfowitz (jew).

Of course though a main factor was US oil interests which people in this country have no one to blame for that but themselves. I live in an area where people willingly move an hour north or an hour west to avoid "city dwellers" and then proceed to buy the biggest gas guzzling SUV they can find. Maybe we wouldn't have to worry so much about oil if we didn't consume so much of it! And I am not being a hyprocrite either, I bought a house 6 miles from my work and 2.5 miles from my fiance's work. Both our vehicles average 25 mpg.

But anyway, we were a target long before invading Iraq. Osama and much of his b.s. centered around our mere presence in the middle east, not to mention we were there to protect his friggin home country!

[Kohburn]

And I am not being a hyprocrite either, I bought a house 6 miles from my work and 2.5 miles from my fiance's work. Both our vehicles average 25 mpg.

oh and i'm working on selling the fiero so i can get a motorcycle and get 80+mpg :thumbleft:

[V8Mikie]

And I am not being a hyprocrite either, I bought a house 6 miles from my work and 2.5 miles from my fiance's work. Both our vehicles average 25 mpg.

oh and i'm working on selling the fiero so i can get a motorcycle and get 80+mpg :thumbleft:

ok you win :notworthy:

I was considering a motorcycle for work but the way people drive around here no way in hell. Just today some Dodge Intrepid nearly side swiped me since someone in his lane was turning and he didn't feel like slowing down/stopping. If I was on a bike lord only knows what would have happened.

[Kohburn]

[
ok you win :notworthy:

I was considering a motorcycle for work but the way people drive around here no way in hell. Just today some Dodge Intrepid nearly side swiped me since someone in his lane was turning and he didn't feel like slowing down/stopping. If I was on a bike lord only knows what would have happened.

i know guys that carry a billy club on their bike so if someone comes into their lane they can smack the car with it and wake up the driver.

[V8Mikie]

[
ok you win :notworthy:

I was considering a motorcycle for work but the way people drive around here no way in hell. Just today some Dodge Intrepid nearly side swiped me since someone in his lane was turning and he didn't feel like slowing down/stopping. If I was on a bike lord only knows what would have happened.

i know guys that carry a billy club on their bike so if someone comes into their lane they can smack the car with it and wake up the driver.

Nice. My friend used to carry marbles with him in his biker jacket, anytime someone did something stupid they got a marble to the windshield and of course they weren't catching him in his 954RR.