And to think those silly Iraqi’s are getting all upset when they have all this wonderful democracy to look forward to…:rolleyes:
Fine by me, Brutus. You keep up the illusion that if you guys pour enough troops and money in you will turn Iraqis into Americans. Keep the idea that because its a Muslim theocracy it is EEEvil and will be against America.
Of course if the United States allows the Iraqis freedom to choose there destiny there is a chance the people of Iraq and its new governement could be greatful. Possibly work with the US to rebuild. There could be a call for moderation as many Clerics were doing before the incident last week.
You don’t need UN help?
Fine, watch the costs escalate, watch the number of casualties grow, watch the overall apathy for the plight of Iraqi people swell.
This situation reminds me of the last act in the film Lawrence of Arabia. The UN, like the Brits in the film can merely sit, debate and watch everything deteriorate until The US either pulls out or turns over control. It is immoral, and inhumane, but unfortunately politics takes such gambles using human lives as poker chips.
And so long as there are pinheads stubbornly wanting to go it alone, holding out to prove a point and holding a grudge, you can suffer alone, Of course it’s the Iraqis who are the ones suffering, but they really don’t count do they?
Seems Brutus is rather charmed by the idea of the US leading the world, in the most literal sence. History has shown that empires like that don’t last: the British empire shrunk to what it is now, the once mighty Dutch have naught but a few Caribean islands, the Portuegese no longer rule the Seven Seas. But somehow, even with all this knowledge, some thick-headed Americans seem to want to do it all over again. The fact that people like Brutus think that way is merely annoying: the fact that they’ve elected such a person President is downright frightening.
I don’t particularly care about the bipartisan debates, but my goodness, it’s like Reagan all over again. A man who helped America to the brink of complete bankruptcy and the total loss of international credibility, yet he is still seen as a hero by many.
Give me a guy who lies about blowjobs again, please. Although to be fair, Clinton bombed Baghdad without provocation as well. So there you have it - no partisan opinion here. Just frickin’ stop already, and focus on your own country for a while. There’ll still be plenty of scoundrel regimes to overthrow when you’re done with that. :rolleyes:
Bottom line: You don’t let go of control of the supply of oil and still have an empire vs. stop the body bags or lose the elction. Interesting compromises to be made. I expect Cheney’s lying down in a dark room.
Boo Boo Foo - If the US hadn’t have done most of what’s it has done since WW2, it wouldn’t be the single empire - with power comes hassle.
Originally posted by grienspace. Location: Vancouver Island.
Yet another party talking loud and proud, happy to have his country’s interests defended no matter how many American lives and American limbs and American dollars it takes. That goes beyond sad to truly sickening, more so for its commonality. Tell us, windbag: What kind of pressure are you putting on your own government to take on its own share of responsibility for the situation you wanted? Meanwhile, you can please do us all a favor and grow the fuck up.
Re the UN, yes, it’s time to make it clear to everyone that the Iraq problem is there, yes, it’s Bush’s fault but it exists and cannot be undone. He’s going to have to not only admit reality and apologize, but cede entire control of the occupation (if not participation, not yet, the force capacity isn’t there) to an organization with some credibility for realism and nonimperialism. The UN should not rebuff Bush, just tell him to admit he screwed up and pull himself out of the process entirely.
LC - you know, I’m not entirely convinced about the empire thing in reality. Certainly, the continent of North America is blessed with extraordinary natural resources which have given the USA a remarkable head start in the last 100 years, but I honestly think the landscape is changing these days - beyond the scope of the USA to influence anymore.
Australia now does huge trade with China and other Asian nations. India is on the verge of becoming an economic powerhouse, and of course the European Union is starting to get it’s shit together quite impressively too.
I can honestly see the day not too far in the future when a huge number of the world are on a similar standard to the USA in terms of net GDP per capita and quality of lifestyle and that sort of stuff. And the irony? The only people talking about being Number One anymore will be those jingoistic Americans who never even stopped to notice the changing of the lanscape.
L_C: do you seriously think there would have been a large Communist empire besides China and North Korea, had Vietnam and Cuba been left alone? I’m assuming the Cold War would have taken place regardless, with a similar outcome: disarmament on both sides.
Well said.
Well it seems the Congressional Budget Office disagrees with you.
At least you’re honest about it. So should the people of Iraq rise up and revolt, demanding a theocratic government the US should react “with vigor”. I’m not sure exactly how vigorous you meant though, would you be happy with enforced curfews under pain of death, jailing of politcal dissidents etc, or are you going for a full Tiananmen Square massacre style event?
Or, indeed, ’83.
Let us be clear on this. If the US bars clerical candidates and subsequent protests draw significant popular support, perhaps including strikes or peaceful civil disobedience, which of these do you, Brutus, advocate?[ul][li]Firing tear gas/water cannon at the protestors.[/li][li]Firing live rounds directly at the protestors.[/li][li] Internment.[/li][li] Arrest/house arrest of said clerical candidates.[/li][li] Armed strike-breakers forcing their way through picket lines.[/li][li] Bulldozing the houses of known revolutionary ringleaders a la the West Bank.[/ul]In short, what do you advocate in Iraq which was not the spark for almost every single revolution in history?[/li]
Regarding UN help, how long do you advocate spending 1 billion dollars per week: A year? Two years? As long as it takes?
Um, no. No fucking way.
Tell you what, you go talk to the Kurds and explain to them that they’ll likely be living under Sharia law and governed by an Islamic council in the Holy city of Najaf. Note their response. We’ll wait here.
Constitution first, allowing for federated control of the respective sections of the country, and keep the Arab League and the enlightened Europeans the hell away from the entire process, imo.
I’m pretty sure, even as a non American, that Thomas Jefferson was MORE THAN adamant that the US Constitution included a caveat that she should never get involved in foreign disputes. I’m astonished this incredible piece of wisdom is so easily overlooked time, and time again.
All right, “now” was stretching it. Obviously, there are a lot of complicating factors, like the Kurd situation. All I’m saying is that the US shouldn’t try and “steer” these elections, lest Iraq becomes another Shah-ruled Iran, if you know what I’m saying.
I don’t see how “enlightened Europeans” are looking to take over the role of the US, by the way. All I see is suggestions that the UN take over. The UN, of course, is not a European institution.
Bush will need to let the UN control the military situation before any major nation will send troops or money. As this will be an admission of failure on Bush’s behalf, it is never going to happen.
Given how Bush decided to act unilaterally, bad mouthed many of the countires he is now asking for troops to serve under Bush Administration control in a internationally unpopular war, I doubt even George was dumb enough to actually think anyone would take him up on his dubious offer. That probably was the plan- look like you asked for help and were turned down by the foreigners. But in really looks like he is being asked to be bailed out of his pigheaded mistake on his own terms and is getting laughed at.
Who loses in all this- American Soldiers. 
There’s a word I’m thinking here. It has to do with deliberately exaggerating an OP so as to get responses.
It starts with T, I’m sure. Something about bridges. Tolling? No, that’s not it. Trilling? No, not it either.
As far as your suggestion that the UN should disregard the situation of the average Iraqi so as to play petty revenge games on Bush, it is, of course, beneath contempt. As well as a sterling example of moral hypocrisy of the lunatic Left who recommend that Bush do things so that you can condemn him for doing them.
Do I need to cut and paste one of the hundreds of times the left wing has insisted that the UN should be the basis for a multi-national response to Iraq? Or can we simply take it as proven that you folks are a batch of moral whores, who don’t really give a shit about Iraq so long as you can scream at Bush?
This kind of horseshit - trying to punish someone for starting a war - is what led to the downfall of the League of Nations, and the Weimar republic in Germany between World Wars I and II.
THe SDMB never fails to surprise. Just when you thought you had seen all the petty hypocrisy there was on the Internet…
Regards,
Shodan
Let me pose a situation…
The US installs its favored Iraqi government. Most Iraqis would prefer a different leader.
How long does the US stay in Iraq to prop up their favored leader?
How does the UN respond?
How does this promote stability in the region?
How does this help US- Muslim relations?
Those Empires have fallen because the squeemish took power back home; They were not ‘kicked out’ all over the world. It takes very little force, if properly applied, to keep power, even in the face of heated resistance. If Imperialsm-minded folk were in power in those countries, they will still have holdings all over the Pacific, Africa, etc. If only the British kept their hold on Iraq back in the day…
Regardless, not allowing a particular party to run for office is hardly a new development in these situations. The Khmer Rouge is not allowed to run for office in Cambodia. Various parties have been banned in Bosnia. Shrug Such is the business of running other countries.
You missunderstand my previous post, Coldfire. The leader of a given country can be of a certain religion, as are most western leaders, without turning their nations into theocracies, which no western country is. I give a damn what religion the future President/Prime Minister of Iraq is; I do care that they are not Islamic fundamentalists.
Do any of you honestly believe that a Islamic theocracy would be a positive development for Iraq?
Bottom line: Iraq is now a American ‘protectorate’. We will not allow a unfriendly government (which a theocracy would certainly be) to take power. I don’t think we are going to need to worry about elections in Iraq for some time, anyways.
Shodan, it’s far from trolling. he was provocative, but not with the intent to offend.
the UN should certainly be involved in Iraq, but on the UN’s terms, and certainly not on the Bush Administrations.
Hey, is that brush wide enough for ya? As you can see, there are plenty of “left” posters here who disagree with the notion that the UN should give GWB his comeuppance.
Come come, Shodan, the OP was a genuine rant: this is not GD.
I believe it has been agreed that the average Iraqi should not be overlooked in composing a response to any future request for UN assistance. However, what the thread is all about is given an insistence on multilateral action, should the UN attempt to “teach a lesson” to states invading other states without genuine reason, and if so how?