Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by superdave, Nov 8, 2003.
where's the choice for "no, but we will never bring forth a stable nation"?
No. The boys are expendable.
We won the war in Iraq, we may be losing the peace.
I don't know if I am getting a completely different picture of this from the Taiwanese press that y'all are getting from the American side of the Pacific. Here, there has been quite a lot of reporting of the positive accomplishments both in the north, and to a lesser extent in the south. From what I am seeing, there are a lot of of successes to brag about.
It is rather unfortunate, even criminal, that the Saddam loyalists and terrorists (are they one and the same - perhaps so) are doing everything they can to hinder the development of the infrastructure and an indegenous democracy. These attacks only further justify the continued occupation of the country by coalition forces. However, it is pretty obvious that it isn't the welfare of the Iraqi people that these terrorists are looking out for. I think it is safe to say that the coalition soldiers on the ground have FAR MORE concern for the welfare of the Iraqi people than the terrorists.
The only way we lose in Iraq is if the American people are unwilling to pay the price. There will be some inevitable casualties, due to the hit and run guerrilla tactics of the enemy. But I cannot imagine the US losing, because I think we are fighting a small minority of Baathist loyalists and terrorists.
However if we cannot accept the casualties and we make it politically untenable to continue the effort, then we will lose. That is what the terrorists and reactionaries in Iraq are hoping for. Time will tell if they are right or wrong.
would you get a new song already?
The terrorists are hoping we disagree with argentinian soccer hack.
Then we have lost.
If we are losing it is France's fault.
My first choice was going to be check back in two months, but its going to take years to know if Iraq will develop into a stable state. The Kurds want their own country, or some kind of semi-autonomous thing, at least a substantial minority of Shiites will want to retain the privileges they enjoyed previously and I doubt the Sunnis are organized enough to have an agenda at all right now.
There can be no doubt that what the US does will influence how Iraq ends up. However,the people of Iraq will have more to do with have the peace turns out than Administration policy.
What is a "stable nation?" Is it possible that we could leave Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld's definition of a stable nation in place, and still, in the view of many, leave Iraq a failed state?
Absolutely. Indeed, most likely.
Self-righteous garbage. The "many" would probably be the same people who would want to belittle the accomplishments of the Bush Administration, regardless of what they are. Iraq is already a "failed state", a disaster in human rights. The successful implementation of a democratic state in Iraq would automatically make it a stable nation in comparison (as any dictatorship is in reality completely unstable), and this goal would be the aim of any modern (post-Cold war) American administration regardless of party affiliation. The mistakes of past administrations in supporting right wing regimes and counter-revolutionaries is well documented. Both parties were responsible for this method of dealing with communism, and the U.S. is reaping the fruits of this labor in Afghanistan as well as in other parts of the world. We cannot change what has happened but it is in our dealings with Afghanistan and Iraq now that the resentment the U.S. has engendered will be mollified somewhat.
What do you think the Bush Administation would do in Iraq that would qualify it as a success in their eyes and a failure in yours? Do you think they would go too far, or not far enough? Would they give too much power to the shiites and not the sunni or visa versa? Would they create a mini kurdish state and piss off the Turks, or ignore the plight of the kurds and create unrest in the north of Iraq? Or is democracy just a bad idea in general because it will inspire paranoia in neighboring muslim states?
This is a bad analogy in some ways, but if the U.S. is as successful withIraq as with Japan after WWII, the re-construction will be viewed as a striking success. Many more Japanese civilians died as a result of U.S. bombing than Iraqis, and the infrastructure damage was comparable. If anything the Japanese had much more reason to hate us than the Iraqis, yet they were able to adapt to the changes and soon became one of the most powerful, affluent and free nations on earth. Obviously Japan and Iraq are very different (in both culture and circumstance), but ultimately it will be up to the Iraqis (as JimmyLivealot stated before) to decide how successful the new Iraqi state will be, not the Bush Administration.
Or whether they exist.
EDIT - just to make sure I'm clear. The administration takes us into hostile territory through a whole series of transparent lies, the commanders in the field consistently - one might say invariably - underestimate the potential resistance potential of a nation like Iraq, our diplomacy would be dignified by the term "gunboat," but it's up to me whether we win or not? Well, I vote we do win, how about that?
Seriously, what is it about the right wing? It's as if the Columbus Crew blamed the fans for wanting them to fail, just so they would have a stick to beat Greg Andrulis with. That isn't how it works. I'm not rooting for George Bush to fail. I'm saying he's already failed. That makes me a good American, not a bad one. Resetting Van Halen's "only time will tell if we stand the test of time" won't help. Because, as Spinal Tap reminds us, "the more it stays the same, the less it changes."
The administration has already accomplished much...whether these accomplishments are good or not is a matter of debate.
More like; "regardless of whether or not they exist."
What accomplishments? Huge deficit spending? His tax cut? The protection of America; You know the worst homeland terrorist act in history happened on Dubya's watch. (I know, it was Bill Clinton's fault.) The successful international coalition he has built? The aggressive pursuit of corporate criminals? I mean they got Martha, even if "Kenny boy" is still dining at the Palm.
Bush honestly thought that the war in Iraq was over when he pulled on his jump suit and had a pilot fly him onto that aircraft carrier with the "Mission Accomplished" banner.
This country is less safe, has fewer civil liberties, has a much poorer international reputation, is economically in much worse circumstances since Bush took office. I don't think "belittleing" his accomplishments is the issue. It's more like: What are they?
Um, that's not what "failed state" means.
I chose the not sure option. Though I think it will take longer than 2 months to judge whether or not we are successful in the new main justification the administration has given for the war. If success is judged by the #1 reason we were given before the war (to protect us from Saddams WMD) then the action in Iraq has been almost meaningless since those WMD have been mostly non-existent. So the Bushies have pulled a bait and switch now stressing the transformation of the Iraqi government as the main rationale for our endeavor.
As a result the formation of a functioning, stable, pro-American democracy will now be the standard by which U.S. achievement is measured. And if this is the case the early returns are not at all comforting. What's most disturbing is that it's becoming painfully clear that this administration has no idea what it's doing and seems to be making it up as they go along. What's especially tragic about this development is the fact that American soldiers are dying almost daily because of their incompetence and ineffective post war planning.
Creating a democracy in Iraq was always a tall order and a reach IMO. And the way things have been handled thus far in Iraq doesn't exactly inspire confidence that we will be able to provide enough security to ensure that a flourishing democracy will take root there. So to sum up, it's a little early to tell but I'm not holding my breath.
If USA is a country of dictatorship, I think there might be a hope to conquer Iraq.
Given the fact that US' four year a term presidency and the fickleness of US voters, it's tough.
What about the people who hated Saddam, but now want to get the foreign occupiers out of their country?
Operation Iron Hammer, the emergency meetings with the Bremer, and the new plan for Iraq pretty much answer this question. At the time it was asked, we were losing the war. Hopefully, that's changed now.