[The Placid Casual]

You cannot help a people that don't want to be helped.

We have got rid of Mr Hussein.

Coalition troops are dying daily.

I have to ask if it is time to leave Iraq to it, and for them to sort things out themselves?

My view may be naive and idealistic in view of the fact that the US and UK want to have some say as to the next regime installed in Iraq, but is it really all worth it?

We'll get our oil from Libya instead.

I can see no end to all this except for pulling out... and i was in favour of the war!

[Spliffdaddy]

heh.

Rule #1 - never do what they expect you to do.


I think the US should occupy Iraq for the next 50 years, and after that we should keep Falluja for a US military base.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
heh.

Rule #1 - never do what they expect you to do.


I think the US should occupy Iraq for the next 50 years, and after that we should keep Falluja for a US military base.

Much agreed. But, we should probably test our nukes in Falluja

[voyageur]

Originally posted by The Placid Casual:
You cannot help a people that don't want to be helped.

True, but does anyone have a good idea what proportion of the Iraqi people support the coalition's presence there now? I certainly don't.

I was opposed to the war, but I feel we have a responsibility to clean up the mess we made. Somehow the coalition has to regain the trust of the Iraqis if we are to succeed. I like lil'babykitten's idea of trying to broker a just peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Perhaps if our government put a serious effort into this, we could regain some stature as a force for justice in the world, and with it the trust of the Iraqis.

[The Placid Casual]

Originally posted by voyageur:
True, but does anyone have a good idea what proportion of the Iraqi people support the coalition's presence there now? I certainly don't.

I was opposed to the war, but I feel we have a responsibility to clean up the mess we made. Somehow the coalition has to regain the trust of the Iraqis if we are to succeed. I like lil'babykitten's idea of trying to broker a just peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Perhaps if our government put a serious effort into this, we could regain some stature as a force for justice in the world, and with it the trust of the Iraqis.

I like the idea, but that too is never going to happen.

It is like Northern Ireland, things are just too ingrained, too deep-rooted to get better, well within the next 2 generations at least.

I think we should just let them get on with it. be it democracy, be it civil war, be it whatever... our work there is done. There's no WMDs, and no Saddam.

Lets bring our troops home before we get dragged into a quagmire that we will never get out of.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by The Placid Casual:
I like the idea, but that too is never going to happen.

It is like Northern Ireland, things are just too ingrained, too deep-rooted to get better, well within the next 2 generations at least.

I think we should just let them get on with it. be it democracy, be it civil war, be it whatever... our work there is done. There's no WMDs, and no Saddam.

Lets bring our troops home before we get dragged into a quagmire that we will never get out of.

Although I share some of your reserves, leaving Iraq just like this because "your work is done" reflects poorly on the accountability of the liberators.

The whole thing should be handled to the U.N., like ASAP, and the coalition of the "Braves" should provide support for an International Peace Keeping mission.

You cannot stir a bee hive and leave to the neighbours the responsibility to control the eventual flow of refugees coming from a Civil War... Because this is highly probable, though not certain, that this is going to happen.

See this post I have made earlier for the basis of my reasoning:

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...0&pagenumber=1

Of course, this is IMHO.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by The Placid Casual:
I think we should just let them get on with it. be it democracy, be it civil war, be it whatever... our work there is done. There's no WMDs, and no Saddam.

Lets bring our troops home before we get dragged into a quagmire that we will never get out of.

I think such a move would be highly irresponsible. I didn't support the war, I don't like the fact that there are troops in Iraq and that they are going to be there for some time. But the "coalition" created this mess, they killed over 10,000 innocents in their so called 'liberation' and the country as of now, is highly unstable. If they left now the country would be in even more turmoil - you might just see someone from Falluja become the next Saddam. Not a great success story.

I don't think the US will leave for many reasons, the primary ones being, a) Bush NEEDS to be seen to 'succeed' in Iraq by Americans and b) That foothold in the Middle East that the neo-cons were after (and was the reason why this war was fought) is not fully in place yet.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
I think such a move would be highly irresponsible. I didn't support the war, I don't like the fact that there are troops in Iraq and that they are going to be there for some time. But the "coalition" created this mess, they killed over 10,000 innocents in their so called 'liberation' and the country as of now, is highly unstable. If they left now the country would be in even more turmoil - you might just see someone from Falluja become the next Saddam. Not a great success story.

I don't think the US will leave for many reasons, the primary ones being, a) Bush NEEDS to be seen to 'succeed' in Iraq by Americans and b) That foothold in the Middle East that the neo-cons were after (and was the reason why this war was fought) is not fully in place yet.

Of course it's "in place", the US basically owns Kuwait and Israel's one of our strongest allies.

and BTW, would you have preferred that Saddam killed 100K people by torture, or the US killed 10K in combat?

[palmberg]

Originally posted by voyageur:
I like lil'babykitten's idea of trying to broker a just peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

LOL! You're kidding, right? The United States' historical involvement in that process is one of the reasons we're in the place we are right now.

The solution is to get out of the Middle East altogether. Just bail. Israel. Palestine. Iraq. Whatever. Make entering the U.S. from any of those countries one of the most miserable, red-tape-burdened processes you can think of. Let Germany, France, and the rest of the U.N. take care of it however they see fit. Our involvement isn't going to solve anything, regardless of who's in the White House. Isn't that clear by now?

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by palmberg:
The solution is to get out of the Middle East altogether. Just bail. Israel. Palestine. Iraq. Whatever.
.....Our involvement isn't going to solve anything, regardless of who's in the White House. Isn't that clear by now?

Agreed.

I have said that the US either drops it's blatant bias in favour of Israel and seeks to have a neutral hand in the resolution of the conflict there OR, it withdraws itself from ME affairs altogether.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by palmberg:
Make entering the U.S. from any of those countries one of the most miserable, red-tape-burdened processes you can think of.

That's a bit extreme.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Agreed.

I have said that the US either drops it's blatant bias in favour of Israel and seeks to have a neutral hand in the resolution of the conflict there OR, it withdraws itself from ME affairs altogether.

It will never happen. Never. The US provides what little stability their is in the ME. Without the presence of the US..WWIII would break out within 5 years.

Besides, if the Arabs try to mess with Israel, I think they are in for a rude awakening - without US backing. Hell, who do you think is holding Israel's leash now?

[palmberg]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
That's a bit extreme.

Actually, after I wrote that it struck me that getting into the U.S. with I.D. from one of those places is probably no picnic at all right now.

In any case, it's far less extreme than splattering people all over the place with minigun fire, no?

[palmberg]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Without the presence of the US..WWIII would break out within 5 years.

At least we'd finally be able to call it a war.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by palmberg:
Actually, after I wrote that it struck me that getting into the U.S. with I.D. from one of those places is probably no picnic at all right now.

Indeed

Originally posted by palmberg:
In any case, it's far less extreme than splattering people all over the place with minigun fire, no?

Well yes. But neither are acceptable.

If the US would stop interfering with Middle-Eastern affairs there would be less resentment coming from there towards the US. America would cease to be a target.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Indeed


Well yes. But neither are acceptable.

If the US would stop interfering with Middle-Eastern affairs there would be less resentment coming from there towards the US. America would cease to be a target.

But, as someone pointed out earlier, the US is holding the leash on Israel. If the US stops getting involved and backs off, Israel will start retaliating for the suicide bombings with open warfare. According to the estimated arms counts (Jane's Q1 `04), it would take the entire might of the E.U. *AND* the Arabs in the M.E. to defeat Israel. Now, you sure you want the U.S. to stop interfering?

Make no mistake about it, Israel could wipe out the entire M.E. without even dipping too deeply into their resources, and smack aside some mid-sized European countries at the same time.

[voyageur]

Originally posted by palmberg:
LOL! You're kidding, right? The United States' historical involvement in that process is one of the reasons we're in the place we are right now.

The solution is to get out of the Middle East altogether. Just bail. Israel. Palestine. Iraq. Whatever. Make entering the U.S. from any of those countries one of the most miserable, red-tape-burdened processes you can think of. Let Germany, France, and the rest of the U.N. take care of it however they see fit. Our involvement isn't going to solve anything, regardless of who's in the White House. Isn't that clear by now?

No, I think the US has a role to play. Jimmy Carter facilitated progress between Itzhak Rabin and Arafat, which was destroyed by Rabin's assassination. But it takes a great leader. Neither Bush nor Kerry are that leader, I'm afraid.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by voyageur:
No, I think the US has a role to play. Jimmy Carter facilitated progress between Itzhak Rabin and Arafat, which was destroyed by Rabin's assassination. But it takes a great leader. Neither Bush nor Kerry are that leader, I'm afraid.

That, I'll agree with.

Powell/Rice in 2008! W00t!

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
But, as someone pointed out earlier, the US is holding the leash on Israel. If the US stops getting involved and backs off, Israel will start retaliating for the suicide bombings with open warfare. According to the estimated arms counts (Jane's Q1 `04), it would take the entire might of the E.U. *AND* the Arabs in the M.E. to defeat Israel. Now, you sure you want the U.S. to stop interfering?

Make no mistake about it, Israel could wipe out the entire M.E. without even dipping too deeply into their resources, and smack aside some mid-sized European countries at the same time.

You seem to think the US is holding the leash on Israel. I think not. Israel does not do much in the way of military action without Washington approval.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Of course it's "in place", the US basically owns Kuwait and Israel's one of our strongest allies.

and BTW, would you have preferred that Saddam killed 100K people by torture, or the US killed 10K in combat?

I hope you realize that Saddam Hussein started to kill people on the first days he was in power and people knew that and still did business with him.

That was 35 years ago.

You are late...

And we (industrialized countries) made the murderer fat with weapons.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
You seem to think the US is holding the leash on Israel. I think not. Israel does not do much in the way of military action without Washington approval.

Thus the leash

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Thus the leash

Allow me a sarcasm:


Thank God Israel is a democracy!

Power to the (American) people!

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
I hope you realize that Saddam Hussein started to kill people on the first days he was in power and people knew that and still did business with him.

That was 35 years ago.

You are late...

And we (industrialized countries) made the murderer fat with weapons.

In those situations, you have to make choices and at that time he was the best choice. Yes, hindsight *IS* 20/20, and at that time we had 2 "outs"... alas, I don't believe either choice would have been acceptable in the long term.

Seems that completely left to their own devices, the M.E. states devolve into feudal societies which breed the types of actions we've seen over the last few decades. Yeah, there are exceptions, but how can the int'l community work to limit the power of their clerics (and their fear tactics) and give the people there a chance for democratic freedom? Don't get me wrong I'm ALL FOR religious freedom and expression, and find the religion of Islam a beautiful thing, I just feel it (like Christianity) is too easily manipulated within particular environments.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by MacNStein:

In those situations, you have to make choices and at that time he was the best choice.

I don't understand. So you tell me it was OK before to finance the guy and sell him the weapons he used to kill his neighbours and his people?

Yes, hindsight *IS* 20/20, and at that time we had 2 "outs"... alas, I don't believe either choice would have been acceptable in the long term.

Seems that completely left to their own devices, the M.E. states devolve into feudal societies which breed the types of actions we've seen over the last few decades.

What? They devolved? My poor guy, you think the History of the World started with your first cognitions? Middle East has barely changed politically since the times of Mahomet!!! And instead of "devolving" which is a very strange concept indeed (please look it up in a book explaining evolution!!!) they have well adapted their cultures to the rest of "civilization"! They did e v o l v e : the leaders of Middle East use the oil for your car to enrich themselves and maintain their populations in ignorance! Which is, by the way, a trick used in pretty much any so called d e m o c r a c i e s!

Saddam Hussein has not done any different: he used his resources and recycled them into the power he applied to "his" people and make himself even more powerful!

Control has evolved!

In fact, they are just not like you and that disturbs you. And that feeds your prejudice! I am not saying you should not hate them for their violence, and their oppression, but using "devolve" to describe their society says 2 things about you: you are extremely positively prejudiced about yourself, and you are extremely negatively prejudiced about whomever is not you. And that makes it a big problem for you... Ethnocentrism is the weakness of all people and a good ground for conflict.

Yeah, there are exceptions, but how can the int'l community work to limit the power of their clerics (and their fear tactics) and give the people there a chance for democratic freedom? Don't get me wrong I'm ALL FOR religious freedom and expression, and find the religion of Islam a beautiful thing, I just feel it (like Christianity) is too easily manipulated within particular environments.

Well look at our own leaders (industrialized countries) and tell me if you have absolute certainty their are not playing us for fools!!! And what have you done to limit the power of our own political and corporate clerics.

I am not saying you are not well motivated, but some of your preconceptions are puting you in the same position as the people you look down from so high...

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
Originally posted by MacNStein:

I don't understand. So you tell me it was OK before to finance the guy and sell him the weapons he used to kill his neighbours and his people?


What? They devolved? My poor guy, you think the History of the World started with your first cognitions? Middle East has barely changed politically since the times of Mahomet!!! And instead of "devolving" which is a very strange concept indeed (please look it up in a book explaining evolution!!!) they have well adapted their cultures to the rest of "civilization"! They did e v o l v e : the leaders of Middle East use the oil for your car to enrich themselves and maintain their populations in ignorance! Which is, by the way, a trick used in pretty much any so called d e m o c r a c i e s!

Saddam Hussein has not done any different: he used his resources and recycled them into the power he applied to "his" people and make himself even more powerful!

Control has evolved!

In fact, they are just not like you and that disturbs you. And that feeds your prejudice! I am not saying you should not hate them for their violence, and their oppression, but using "devolve" to describe their society says 2 things about you: you are extremely positively prejudiced about yourself, and you are extremely negatively prejudiced about whomever is not you. And that makes it a big problem for you... Ethnocentrism is the weakness of all people and a good ground for conflict.



Well look at our own leaders (industrialized countries) and tell me if you have absolute certainty their are not playing us for fools!!! And what have you done to limit the power of our own political and corporate clerics.

I am not saying you are not well motivated, but some of your preconceptions are puting you in the same position as the people you look down from so high...

No, causing sad people like you to rant in their defense. Sad.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
No, causing sad people like you to rant in their defense. Sad.

If you saw any defense in that text you are pretty biased...

I included industrialized countries and the oppressive regimes of the Middle East.

But that makes how you think even clearer...

And I won't take your bullying next time...

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
If you saw any defense in that text you are pretty biased...

I included industrialized countries and the oppressive regimes of the Middle East.

But that makes how you think even clearer...

And I won't take your bullying next time...

MY bullying? You're the one screaming.

[ladybird]

In the Quiet Land, no one can tell
if there�s someone who�s listening
for secrets they can sell.
The informers are paid in the blood of the land
and no one dares speak what the tyrants won�t stand.
<< Daw Aung Sam Suu Kyi >>