Political Argument Arena!!!

[ToonUSA]

McCain.

[tigerdave]

The lesser of three evils is McCain.

[JaredSS07]

My options...

1. McCain
2. Hillary
3. Move to Canada (my wife would love me even more)
4. Gunshot blast to the head
5. Obama

[BayernWake]

I don't know enough about the candidates to make a decision. :o

WHOOPS

[colinh9]

My options...

1. McCain
2. Hillary
3. Move to Canada (my wife would love me even more)
4. Gunshot blast to the head
5. Obama

Oh god, that's just scary.

Obama is my first choice, I don't really have a second choice being that Hillary is just another scummy politician. I don't feel like being in Iraq for 10 more years, making the Bush tax cuts permanent, and then watching the country ******** itself over completely by going to Iran. So no McCain for me either.

I haven't been in this thread in forever. Anyone feel like debating something? :D

[tigerdave]

Oh god, that's just scary.

Obama is my first choice, I don't really have a second choice being that Hillary is just another scummy politician. I don't feel like being in Iraq for 10 more years, making the Bush tax cuts permanent, and then watching the country ******** itself over completely by going to Iran. So no McCain for me either.

I haven't been in this thread in forever. Anyone feel like debating something? :D

I'll gladly debate that Obama is the worst possible option for this country. :)

[ToonUSA]

Oh god, that's just scary.

Obama is my first choice, I don't really have a second choice being that Hillary is just another scummy politician. I don't feel like being in Iraq for 10 more years, making the Bush tax cuts permanent, and then watching the country ******** itself over completely by going to Iran. So no McCain for me either.


I always love how the people on the left try to paint McCain as the 2nd coming of Bush or something. The only thing these 2 men have in common is the fact they'll both have been Republican Presidential nominees. That's it.

[colinh9]

I'll gladly debate that Obama is the worst possible option for this country. :)

Make your case then :)

Bush and McCain have a lot more in common than that, but he is certainly not the second coming of Bush. However, especially on foreign policy he is surrounding himself more and more with neo-cons which scares the living shit out of me. I don't understand how I compared them beyond that and the tax-cuts but whatever.

[tigerdave]

Make your case then.

Gladly. (insert long post disclaimer here)

I will start off by saying that there are several things at his disadvantage. A primary concern is the inexperience and naivete he has in regards to being capable of leading...well, anything. He honestly expects that he can waltz in and negotiate with anyone, and doesn't seem to understand that we're at war. Instead he's intent on relying upon the charm he's used to hoodwink roughly 45% of Americans (primarily ones who are either sheep or just don't know what he's actually about) into thinking he's a quality candidate to convince Ahmedinejad that he doesn't really want to build nukes and push the button at Israel. Or us, for that matter.

On an aside, I don't really think he's that "great" of a speaker or whatnot, people just seem to have latched onto his bumper sticker campaign of change, hope, and hope for change, or what-have-you. Pretty much any politician (Bush notwithstanding) can speak eloquently when prepared properly or reading from a prepared speech. But get Obama cornered when he's unprepared for something and he doesn't sound remotely like the same guy. Wasn't one of the reasons everyone hated Romney was that he appeared too prepared? At any rate, I digress...

Ah, then there's his spiritual mentor and confidant Reverend Wright. I don't believe for one second that Obama didn't know what was going on at the church he's gone to for 20 years. Y'know, the one that embraces the leader of a racist hate group as a great man of God, prints Islamo-fascist/terrorist propaganda in the church bulletins and has its principles built upon Black liberation theology. How else do you explain his disinviting of the Reverend to his "I'm going to run for President" shindig, or the fact that he's constantly covering for someone who espouses such hatred for our government and the white man? This isn't even mentioning his friendly associations with the Weather Underground ringleader, a confessed and non-repentant terrorist against the United States.

You can already tell free speech is going to be an issue as well with Obama. If the slightest thing is said that irks him or something comes out that he might find offensive, he acts quickly to squelch the source. If Obama is firing staffers for saying something or pressuring superdelegates to step down for saying something that could only be found as offensive by the most hypersensitive of liberals, what do you think that's going to mean for the rest of us if we question anything about him once elected? I sense many mysterious disappearances in the future...kidding. Kinda.

And this is all before I actually get into his actual political policy!

He wants to tax the shit out of the rich, and lower the taxes on the middle class (by his definition, anyone under 75,000 in annual salary), and with all the new spending he's proposed for social programs (well over a trillion bucks above and beyond current government spending) you can pretty much tell he's in total favor of redistribution of wealth. Last time I checked, that system failed miserably in...well, every country it's been tried in. Whereas capitalism rewards the ambitious and those trying to live the American dream through hard work and determination, and punishes the lazy who expect Big Brother to bail them out.

This doesn't even mention that his increased tax burden on the rich will stunt the economy by forcing the rich business owners to recoup the tax money through profit margins and cut back on investment. Which means less innovation and fewer American jobs through either lay-offs or outsourcing. Couple that with the fact that a marginal tax break to the lower and middle class will give people just enough money to start living paycheck to paycheck again rather than spending more than they make, and it's a potential recipe for the complete and utter destruction of the capitalist system under which this nation was built. Of course, being a socialist, he may not see that as a bad thing.

Now, being as his tax burden will possibly cause more problems than benefits to the economy, it's highly likely that he'll have to go back on his word with the tax cuts for the middle class and will have to tax the crap out of them too in order to pay for his social programs. I know that politicians are professional liars, basically, but c'mon. At least tell lies we can't see through beforehand, eh?

On to nationalized healthcare: Bad idea, ask the UK, ask Canada. Treatments are made based on what's cost effective rather than what would actually help people. I don't want the hospital playing God with my life because life-saving surgery might not outweight the cost outlay to perform the procedure. That's fundamentally wrong and messing with the right to life.

Cutting and running in Iraq is not an option. Popular or not, legal or not, just or not, we're ********ing there. And until the country is stable enough to run on its own, we need to be there to help it along. Clean up our own mess, so to speak, if it is a mess (which the Dems unequivocally believe it is). Obama should read the history books and remember that we were fighting wars against the "tyranny" to preserve our fledgling independence for, oh, 36 years, if my math is correct? (Of course, for all we know he could still think the war for independence is being fought, if he subscribes to his church's teachings.) It's been all of five in Iraq. You can't rush things like democracy and stability. But if he wants to throw the Middle East into further chaos and give Iran the opportunity to rebuild the Persian Empire, try and obliterate Israel from the map and build a platform to further the creation of Islamic law-based caliphates around the globe, I guess that's his deal. But Obama better not be shocked when Ahmedinejad brings his nukes to the tea party.

Obama's right that Washington is fundamentally broken. He's even right, to an extent, that we need change to instill hope back into the average American. But the conclusions he's come to are far, far more likely to do harm than good, and his character needs to be thoroughly scrutinized before he can be considered anything more than the least-desirable candidate. Don't get me wrong, I'm of the opinion that Clinton and McCain pretty much suck too. But at least you know what you're getting with those two. Does he even pass the background check to get the level of clearances necessary to be President? I heard somewhere that he doesn't but that's total hearsay as far as I know.

For those who haven't paid attention or don't get my longwindedness and need the blunt version of why he's a terrible candidate, here you go: In short, he's a full-fledged socialist who has erected a grand facade but can't tell the truth when pressed about it, can't handle the slightest bit of scrutiny, and has questionable (at the very least) judgement in his associations — from what we know of his character, which is next to nothing.


Your move. :)

[Russell1892]

On to nationalized healthcare: Bad idea, ask the UK, ask Canada. Treatments are made based on what's cost effective rather than what would actually help people. I don't want the hospital playing God with my life because life-saving surgery might not outweight the cost outlay to perform the procedure. That's fundamentally wrong and messing with the right to life.

Not to get involved in your American politics... but despite the headlines we're actually pretty pleased with the idea of free* healthcare. Its a better way of running things I think. You don't think your health insurance company is more worried about what is cost-effective?

I am a bit alarmed by the "Cut and run" policy in Iraq... granted its been a stream of shit since the beginning (and I wish we'd never agreed to go along with Bush... its like how your best mates talk you out of fights sometimes) but abandoning the whole thing now would be irresponsible - especially on a hollow political promise thats not dependant on reasoning or facts at the time. It probably is all going to end in civil war though, its only a country because Churchill decided it was anyway. (ah back when we ruled the world :rolleyes: - see how well we did things?)

We'll just all be glad to see Bush go to be honest... whatever happens.

[tigerdave]

Not to get involved in your American politics... but despite the headlines we're actually pretty pleased with the idea of free* healthcare. Its a better way of running things I think. You don't think your health insurance company is more worried about what is cost-effective?

I just prefer a free market way of doing things. 'Sides, nationalized healthcare means that anyone (including the 30 million or so illegals here, massive problem that needs to be dealt with in some form other than amnesty) can go and get healthcare on my dime.

[ToonUSA]

For those who haven't paid attention or don't get my longwindedness and need the blunt version of why he's a terrible candidate, here you go: In short, he's a full-fledged socialist who has erected a grand facade but can't tell the truth when pressed about it, can't handle the slightest bit of scrutiny, and has questionable (at the very least) judgement in his associations — from what we know of his character, which is next to nothing.


It's always amusing when Obama or his supporters cite his great judgment as somehow being better than the experience of McCain. What kind of judgment does a man trying to run a campaign of "change and hope" have when his Church (that he's belonged to for 20 years) gives Louis Farrakhan the lifetime achievement award?

[JaredSS07]

I am a bit alarmed by the "Cut and run" policy in Iraq... granted its been a stream of shit since the beginning (and I wish we'd never agreed to go along with Bush... its like how your best mates talk you out of fights sometimes) but abandoning the whole thing now would be irresponsible - especially on a hollow political promise thats not dependant on reasoning or facts at the time. It probably is all going to end in civil war though, its only a country because Churchill decided it was anyway. (ah back when we ruled the world :rolleyes: - see how well we did things?)


You guys have no room to talk about Iraq. Your policies created the mess and you deserve to be there trying to fix it. Just because you cut and ran from world leadership doesn't mean you have a free pass to judge.

And I know from experience that Canada's national healthcare is a sham. When I was working there, we researched and found out that only a few nations consider their national healthcare system to be good. I think Sweden and Japan were at the top.

[BayernWake]

You guys have no room to talk about Iraq. Your policies created the mess and you deserve to be there trying to fix it. Just because you cut and ran from world leadership doesn't mean you have a free pass to judge.

I'm no political pundit or historian, but something's very fishy about your claim that

1) Britain created the clusterf#ck in Iraq, and
2) Britain somehow renounced their world leadership via "cutting and running"

And I'm pretty sure Russell can say whatever the hell he wants, regardless of his country's policies.

Please continue! :D

[JaredSS07]

I'm no political pundit or historian, but something's very fishy about your claim that

1) Britain created the clusterf#ck in Iraq, and
2) Britain somehow renounced their world leadership via "cutting and running"

And I'm pretty sure Russell can say whatever the hell he wants, regardless of his country's policies.

Please continue! :D

1) Britain created Iraq when they were cutting up the Ottoman Empire. It is my understanding that the majority of the empire was broken into regions that ethnically or historically made sense. Iraq was left and had neither ethnic homogeny or a historically dominate power to give power back to. Britain imposed a monarchy but by the early ‘60s, Britain had pulled out of the region and left them to fight out the ethnic problems and power struggles. Without the Brits supporting the monarchy in Iraq, it fell to the military.

2) Britain left their role as global hegemon after WWII. Churchill knew the nation couldn’t economically or militarily maintain their power and was more than happy to turn over the role of world policeman to the USA. Cut and run was humorous hyperbole.

With all the whining you used to hear from Britain about Blair being Bush’s bitch and standing up to the US, I wonder if they aren’t becoming French.

[Russell1892]

You guys have no room to talk about Iraq. Your policies created the mess and you deserve to be there trying to fix it. Just because you cut and ran from world leadership doesn't mean you have a free pass to judge.

Erm... I don't have the right to an opinion about a war my country and members of my family have been involved in? Granted you can say my opinions on America's healthcare are none of my business... but this?? really?

We didn't cut and run from world leadership... it was more like we were bankrupted as a nation after 1945 - suddenly the empire seemed like a needless extravagence when faced with rebuilding all our major cities after Nazi bombing, and having a national debt to you lads over in America that we only paid off in 2005. Plus its part of the natural cycle of history that one country dominates for a while before another country rises to prominence, ours just happened to come from the time after the industrial revolution to around 1945.

Granted we created a few of the problems in the middle east. We created the nation of Iraq... thats as far as our responsibilities go... but I will say the creation of Israel (which is a whole other matter all together)and the way we used to draw the map out to fit whatever shapes we saw in our head has affected the middle-east. But I'm not going to ask you for a f*cking tea-bag saying I "deserve" it because of the Boston Tea Party.

Just be appreciative we joined in this ill thought-out failure of international policy. :D And remember foreign policy is not a team sport... its not like British people are rival fans getting in the way of you winning.

I'm no political pundit or historian,

I'm a historian. :rolleyes: Newcastle University - History. Its shameful how much I've already forgotton. Not all geordies are numpties... but I did get a few looks when I spoke up in lectures like "F*ckin hell the cleaner's keen."

[colinh9]

Part 1.

Gladly. (insert long post disclaimer here)

I will start off by saying that there are several things at his disadvantage. A primary concern is the inexperience and naivete he has in regards to being capable of leading...well, anything. He honestly expects that he can waltz in and negotiate with anyone, and doesn't seem to understand that we're at war. Instead he's intent on relying upon the charm he's used to hoodwink roughly 45% of Americans (primarily ones who are either sheep or just don't know what he's actually about) into thinking he's a quality candidate to convince Ahmedinejad that he doesn't really want to build nukes and push the button at Israel. Or us, for that matter.


Inexperience has often been cited as a weakness of Obamas'. However, let's be honest, in our Presidential history there have been Presidents that were labeled as inexperienced but did a terrific job and there were experienced Presidents who did not do such a great job. The executive branch surronds itself with experienced people who help shape the decision making process. A President has a cabinet that probably has a wealth of experience at their disposal.

The idea that 45% of Americans support someone because they are sheep or just don't know what he's actually about is astonishing. First, how informed do you actually think the average voter is? Many voters base their decisions on stupid things, such as advertisements, what their parents think etc. Sure there are Obama supporters that don't know all of his policies, but I guarantee you I can find just as many Clinton or McCain supporters who have the same problem. There are an extreme amount of Obama supporters that know damn well what his policies are, and can list a great deal of his strengths.

I think something that can cite Obama's true reach is his ability to get people to care about politics for the first time. So many people that I have talked with have expressed their disillusionment with American politics. These are well educated people who just have seen the crap of our system and wanted to avoid it at all costs. Now, they believe Obama is something that can change that, whether you agree with that or not he has brought a great deal of supporter through those means.

You say he thinks he can walk around and negotiate with everyone, that is false. He does WANT to be diplomatic, to avoid war and fighting at all costs. He has said he will SPEAK to Iran, not that he will bend over and let them do us up the ass. There is a major difference. And he has on more than one occasion admitted that if necessary he is prepared to use our military might. He just prefers not to. Compare that with McCain who is gearing up for a war in Iran that would
destroy the United States.


On an aside, I don't really think he's that "great" of a speaker or whatnot, people just seem to have latched onto his bumper sticker campaign of change, hope, and hope for change, or what-have-you. Pretty much any politician (Bush notwithstanding) can speak eloquently when prepared properly or reading from a prepared speech. But get Obama cornered when he's unprepared for something and he doesn't sound remotely like the same guy. Wasn't one of the reasons everyone hated Romney was that he appeared too prepared? At any rate, I digress...


First he is a great orator. People on both sides of the spectrum have admitted this and he gets a lot of credit for his ability to speak. While I agree with you that most politicians can speak eloquently, not all can motivate as he does. If you have seen a decent percentage of his speeches you will see the crowd get more into it than normal for politics. You say he sounds different when he is asked a question he isn't prepared for. Sure, not everyone just spouts shit out of their ass like our current President. The way I see it, Obama takes a time to think about it for a second before he speaks. He may stutter or hesitate for a second sure, but that doesn't mean what is coming out of his mouth is garbage. I don't understand that logic. And no the problem with Romney was the fact that he was more of a flip-flopper than anyone in the campaign. If you want to argue Edwards was a populist, I don't see how you can deny Romney was. I mean he told people in Michigan they would get their jobs back if he was elected. The guy was a complete weasel and the only time we heard him talk from the heart was when he was bowing out of the race. THAT my friend was the problem with Romney.


Ah, then there's his spiritual mentor and confidant Reverend Wright. I don't believe for one second that Obama didn't know what was going on at the church he's gone to for 20 years. Y'know, the one that embraces the leader of a racist hate group as a great man of God, prints Islamo-fascist/terrorist propaganda in the church bulletins and has its principles built upon Black liberation theology. How else do you explain his disinviting of the Reverend to his "I'm going to run for President" shindig, or the fact that he's constantly covering for someone who espouses such hatred for our government and the white man? This isn't even mentioning his friendly associations with the Weather Underground ringleader, a confessed and non-repentant terrorist against the United States.

These are pretty damn large accusations. A bit of fear mongering?

Reverend Wright was not his spiritual mentor, he was his pastor. Obama sitting in the crowd listening does not mean he held all the same beliefs. One of the things I admire so much about Obama is that he is willing to listen to everyone. Even those who have a different ideology. That is why you can ask many of the UoC Law Professors what they think of Obama and their responses will only commend him. Very conservative Professors none the less.

His friendly associations with the Weather Underground ringleader? I'd like to see a document or evidence of that charge because you are essentially calling him a pledged terrorist. Do you really think the public wouldn't already know about that? Why hasn't John McCain or Clinton pointed that out? Surely it would end his campaign don't you think?

[colinh9]

You can already tell free speech is going to be an issue as well with Obama. If the slightest thing is said that irks him or something comes out that he might find offensive, he acts quickly to squelch the source. If Obama is firing staffers for saying something or pressuring superdelegates to step down for saying something that could only be found as offensive by the most hypersensitive of liberals, what do you think that's going to mean for the rest of us if we question anything about him once elected? I sense many mysterious disappearances in the future...kidding. Kinda.

You can't possibly be serious. A left-leaning fear mongerer who wants to stifle people's opinions. Down with the First

Amendment. Really?

Obama might be firing, or asking staffers to step down, for saying something controversial yes. That is common practice.


He wants to tax the shit out of the rich, and lower the taxes on the middle class (by his definition, anyone under 75,000 in annual salary), and with all the new spending he's proposed for social programs (well over a trillion bucks above and beyond current government spending) you can pretty much tell he's in total favor of redistribution of wealth. Last time I checked, that system failed miserably in...well, every country it's been tried in. Whereas capitalism rewards the ambitious and those trying to live the American dream through hard work and determination, and punishes the lazy who expect Big Brother to bail them out.

A trillion bucks above and beyond current government spending? Where are you getting this?

Tax the shit out of the rich? You mean put it back to old levels before the Bush tax cuts? The richest 1% of people in this country have a 190:1 ratio of wealth to the median wealth. You think that's fair? 20% of families two years ago living under the poverty level (20,000 measly dollars) in 2006 in the richest country in the world and you want to tell me that is acceptable? Look, there are a great deal of rich people who didn't want these tax cuts, that recognize they have more money than God while others can't afford daycare for their children. There is a duty of government to ensure the people of their country aren't suffering. Now these are all personal opinions but I think you will find that Obama isn't trying to completely redistribute wealth. He may want to end the Bush tax cuts but that does not equate with socialism by any means.

And don't talk about Big Brother bailing people out when the biggest corporations get major tax breaks. Why is Big Brother allowing that to happen? Why would oil companies have favorable tax rates when the average American can't afford gas?

This doesn't even mention that his increased tax burden on the rich will stunt the economy by forcing the rich business owners to recoup the tax money through profit margins and cut back on investment. Which means less innovation and fewer American jobs through either lay-offs or outsourcing. Couple that with the fact that a marginal tax break to the lower and middle class will give people just enough money to start living paycheck to paycheck again rather than spending more than they make, and it's a potential recipe for the complete and utter destruction of the capitalist system under which this nation was built. Of course, being a socialist, he may not see that as a bad thing.

Complete and utter destruction under which this nation was built? Come on man, I'm pretty sure that even the craziest imagined increased tax burden on the rich wouldn't do that. I also think Obama's other programs can create a lot of American jobs. He has talked about investing in green technology that would create thousands of jobs for average Americans. Start living paycheck to paycheck again? So you are admitting that most people can't even get by on what they are making right now? Most people if they get more money are more willing to spend money. This makes a middle class that is more willing to buy new cars, to invest in housing, to invest in general.

Calling Obama a socialist is pretty poor form though. I don't see how there is any evidence of this.


Now, being as his tax burden will possibly cause more problems than benefits to the economy, it's highly likely that he'll have to go back on his word with the tax cuts for the middle class and will have to tax the crap out of them too in order to pay for his social programs. I know that politicians are professional liars, basically, but c'mon. At least tell lies we can't see through beforehand, eh?

True, just ask Bush how its done.


On to nationalized healthcare: Bad idea, ask the UK, ask Canada. Treatments are made based on what's cost effective rather than what would actually help people. I don't want the hospital playing God with my life because life-saving surgery might not outweight the cost outlay to perform the procedure. That's fundamentally wrong and messing with the right to life.


The private sector isn't just going to up and disappear. I'm relatively sure if you need open heart surgery there will be a way to get the best possible care for your buck. What is fundamentally wrong and messing with the right to life is the system we have now, where tons of people are not wealthy enough to afford proper healthcare. Where industry and lobbyists are so powerful that people can't afford their medication. That's absurd.
Cutting and running in Iraq is not an option. Popular or not, legal or not, just or not, we're ********ing there. And ntil the country is stable enough to run on its own, we need to be there to help it along. Clean up our own mess, so to speak, if it is a mess (which the Dems unequivocally believe it is). Obama should read the history books and remember that

we were fighting wars against the "tyranny" to preserve our fledgling independence for, oh, 36 years, if my math is correct? (Of course, for all we know he could still think the war for independence is being fought, if he subscribes to his church's teachings.) It's been all of five in Iraq. You can't rush things like democracy and stability. But if he wants to throw the Middle East into further chaos and give Iran the opportunity to rebuild the Persian Empire, try obliterate Israel from the map and build a platform to further the creation of Islamic law-based caliphates around the globe, I guess that's his deal. But Obama better not be shocked when Ahmedinejad brings his nukes to the tea party.



Cutting and running in Iraq is an option and its probably the best one. I will have to make a whole separate argument for this but I am willing to do so when I get the chance. Cleaning up our own mess? If you break it you have to fix it right?

Well not necessarily. If you let a bull loose in a China shop you don't just leave it there and expect it to fix its own mess. You get it out as soon as possible and then you fix the mistakes you made.

Uhh I'm not sure you know the logistics of the war right now if you think that leaving equates to Iran's power. Actually what we have done in Iraq up until this point is support a Shia minority that actually benefits Iran. We've already eliminated their greatest threat in the region, and made them a hegemonic power. We are going to need Iran to police Iraq no matter what, and we are going to have to pander to their needs. Like it or not our policy has just helped Iran in a way they could have only dreamed before the war.

The whole point of the surge was to reduce violence and create stability so political gains could be made. However, the surge is over now, and the political process has not made too much progress at all. Sadr, as it has become increasingly clear that he can't achieve power through political means, has gone back to violence(Basra). One of the major reasons violence had decreased is his ceasefire. Add that to the fact that we were paying off a ton of militias to fight with us, and you see that the surge isn't exactly as successful as the Bush administration wants it to appear. Civil war seems inevitable, and a power-sharing democratic government sure doesn't. Find me more than 5 examples of a power-sharing government that came after a civil war and you can make your case quite strong.


Obama's right that Washington is fundamentally broken. He's even right, to an extent, that we need change to instill hope back into the average American. But the conclusions he's come to are far, far more likely to do harm than good, and his character needs to be thoroughly scrutinized before he can be considered anything more than the least-desirable candidate.

Don't get me wrong, I'm of the opinion that Clinton and McCain pretty much suck too. But at least you know what you're

getting with those two.

I don't understand how you can say that Washington is fundamentally broken and then back Clinton or McCain who will bring more of the same. Explain to me what you think they will do that will fix all of our apparent problems.

Does he even pass the background check to get the level of clearances necessary to be President? I heard somewhere

that he doesn't but that's total hearsay as far as I know.

You can't be serious. Stop your fear-mongering and stick to actual arguments because comments like these are just nuts.

[/QUOTE]

[JaredSS07]

But I'm not going to ask you for a f*cking tea-bag saying I "deserve" it because of the Boston Tea Party.

Let's hope you never ask another guy for a tea bag...

[BayernWake]

1) Britain created Iraq when they were cutting up the Ottoman Empire. It is my understanding that the majority of the empire was broken into regions that ethnically or historically made sense. Iraq was left and had neither ethnic homogeny or a historically dominate power to give power back to. Britain imposed a monarchy but by the early ‘60s, Britain had pulled out of the region and left them to fight out the ethnic problems and power struggles. Without the Brits supporting the monarchy in Iraq, it fell to the military.

Ohhhhhhh I thought you meant Britain caused the Iraq clusterbungle via something they did in the current war. I knew that didn't make sense.