I bet he advocates providing an obtuse answer.
As opposed to an acute one?
Petty revenge games? Do you remember all the names France and Germany were called just a few short months ago? Do you remember “freedom fries”? Do you remember all the threats that France and Germany would be excluded from the reconstruction projects? Is that petty revenge or what? If there has been one nation playing petty revenge it has been the USA. All those who derided the UN are now saying the UN should step in and lend a hand. Now they are all concerned about the poor Iraqis. It was the USA who created the situation and it is the responsibility of the USA to fix it. Nobody else’s. And if the UN wants to help poor people there are plenty of people around the world who need the help even more. Not only that but the USA has the arrogance to ask for money and troops but still demand to be in control. The French have all the right and the reasons to tell the USA to go eat some “freedom fries” or stick them where the sun don’t shine.
LOL Brutus that was the funniest post I have seen in a bit. Too sad you believe it. Try taking a history class or reading a book instead of staring slack-jawed at Fox News Channel all day.
You think the Roman’s lost their empire “because the squeemish took power back home”. And that’s why the Spanish, English and other lost wars and empires?
“It takes very little force, if properly applied, to keep power, even in the face of heated resistance.” Is that why we lost Vietnam? The Soviets lost Afganistan? And why we are doing so poorly in Iraq and Afganistan now?
Do enlighten us some more- these are classics.
Has the rule on troll accusations been lifted then?
Not quite: the parties that will be running in the elections will either be new, or will have been out of power for over 20 years. The Khmer Rouge killed a million Cambodians: can you name an existing Iraqi political fraction that has such a track record? If you can, then I’m all for kicking them off the election ballot.
You seem to misunderstand me, too. And you seem to think it’s all black and white. I’m telling you that a very likely outcome of free elections would be a Shi’ite government, or at least a government in which there is a Shi’ite majority. Does that mean it’s going to be a theocracy? I don’t know: depends on your definition. But the mere fact that Shi’ites might win the elections does not mean that Iraq will be the next Talibanesque terrorist haven on the planet. That was my point.
And I think we need to get free elections as fast as fucking possible. Do you think prolonging the occupation (or “protection” as you call it…) will make Americans more popular? Do you think an extra 6 months of American presence will decrease anti-American feelings in parts of Iraq, and indeed the Muslim world at large?
Think again, Brutus. You got the madman out, that’s great. I didn’t like the way you did it, but it’s water under the bridge now - he’s gone. Now, move aside for the most impartial international influence possible (the UN), and let’s get this country back on track. Despite its troubled past 4 decades, it’s got a history of wealth, culture, and indeed stability to fall back on. Don’t patronise them. Help them back on their feet, by leaving.
That is nothing compared to the prime minister and government of Spain who definitely take the cake for being spineless puppets of the American government.
My post was in repsonse to the question posed to Brutus.
No but it’s the source of the incessant calls for “UN involvement”, “multinational force”, etc, despite the fact that the UN is involved already and so is a multinational force. In which Europe is well-represented in fact. So it’s a little hard to understand the worldview.
And as far as installing a puppet leader - we’re done, afaik. We set up a council. From that council will come a constitution, from the constitution will come free elections, from the elections will come a leader and, I assume, the ousting of all vestiges of US influence, if that’s what they choose. It’s slightly premature to accuse of remaining there to prop up an illegitimate government.
Yes, but isn’t Brutus telling us that the Iraqis can have any government they want… as long as it’s also the government the US wants?
On the elections issue:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17097-2003Sep2.html
Seems the Bush administration itself envisions elections then.
Tee it is Bush Admistration calling for UN involvement. Your “facts” are wrong- you may want to check the latest “talking points” sheet prior to posting. Evidently the UN and Euros are now quite welome in Iraq (under our control, of course). Please see the Cite above and below:
Research is a good thing. 
There is the obvious reply: The Baathists. We all agree on that at least, that the Baath party should not be allowed to hold any office, much less exist?
**
**
Simply the fact that the next ruling faction is Shiite does not make them a ‘theocracy’, no. It depends on the particular Shiites that win. (Or run.)
**
To an extent, irrelevant. It’s not like the Iraqis voted for us to be there; We are there to protect and expand our interests. If the Iraqi people are sensible (as most of them are), they will support our being there. But I am unconvinced that your average Iraqi wants America out any time soon. Have any reliable polls been carried out to that effect?
**
I couldn’t agree more with part of this statement. If any country in the region has a chance at becoming a western-style democracy any time soon, it is Iraq. And if Iraq manages it, perhaps that will bode well for the rest of the region. I am not opposed to interanational aid in the effort, but I am certainly opposed to aid under the banner of the UN.
If you think we were militarily ‘kicked out’ of Vietnam, then it is you that needs to do some boning up on history. Ditto the Soviets in Afghanistan. Simply put for your simple mind, the cost of being in those places exceeded the value of having them. To preempt your next simpering fop of a question, the cost in Iraq, with its central position in the region, will be high, but the value, higher still.
To an extent, yes. It isn’t so much that it has to be precisely the gov’t that we want; It simply cannot be the gov’t that we don’t want.
The underlying assumption in the OP is that the United Nations forces and administrators will come in, pull Bush’s chestnuts out of the fire and stabilize the situation, thus wrongly propping up Bush’s reputation and leading to his being re-elected.
Excuse me, but I think that scenario is a joke.
The U.N. is more than fully capable of screwing up an occupation even worse than the U.S. (yeah, I know, the situation was created by the U.S. to begin with). Odds are that even with substantial commitments by other nations, the bombings and upheaval will continue or even increase. And Bush will still look plenty bad in time for the '04 election.
The time for elections is when there is at least some semblance of stability in Iraq, when there are not daily attacks by Baathist remnants and various provocateurs, when ordinary Iraqis can vote without fear of reprisal or of some sleazebag remnants of Saddam’s regime waiting in the wings to seize power. And once they’ve selected the requisite Big Daddy Mullahs to take care of them, other nations should stand back and offer unobtrusive security help and reconstruction cash (most of the latter coming from the U.S.).
Indeed, elf. My point was that if the UN are to get involved they should be told what the US plans to do in the event of popular support for a clerical Shia candidate.
Brutus has not yet clarified which of the bullet points (literally?) he advocates.
Well, yeah. But how many Baathists are left? And more importantly, would they have the cojones to even show up? 
heh. Pfft. Bah.
Ban Ba’ath and there’ll be another party with a similar nationalist/fascist outlook but another name in its place, with mostly the same cast of characters. But, they’ll have some claim to anti-American sympathies. Best to leave them legal and remove their attractiveness, like Italy did with the Communists.
I’m going to disagree with part of that, sort of. The problem with transition in a one party state that’s ruled for a generation is that everyone who has experience with government was part of that party. I think that former Baathists are going to have to play some role in the new state, the same way that former Communists play a role in the states of the former Communist bloc…not as the Baath party, certainly, but total deBaathification probably isn’t wise.
Bit too hypothetical for me, Sentient. Different situations call for different responses. But if it makes you feel better, sure, I would use lethal force if that is what the particular situation called for.
As for how long we will be there, paying however much per week, I can only say, as long as it takes. Anything less would be unacceptable. If we need to cut some fat from the bugdet at home, in the short-term, to do so, then cut away.
Captain and ElvisL1ves,
Since we will not kill every last Baathist, I know that some will weasal their way back into some positions of power. If they want to start some new Neo-Saddamist party, let 'em, ala the Neo-Nazi situation in Germany. But the Baath party itself should be, and AFAIK, is, banned.
Lordy, guys.
First off, the Iraqis don’t deserve to get ignored by the UN just to spit in the faces of the US. That’s just fucking sick. Yeah, I’m going to go tell someone whose family got wiped off the face of the Earth that I’m not going to help him because I don’t like that guy over there.
By the same token, though, the US needs to get the hell out of Iraq as soon as possible. And we can’t start trying to control the people put up for election – we just have to make sure the elections HAPPEN.
Let’s follow the likely chain of events if the US forces a democracy in Iraq. Remember all the trouble Russia had after a century of communism? Democracy and capitalism can be a real bitch starting out, and they’re better for the longer term rather than shorter.
I think you can see what’s coming. Even if we leave Iraq with a relatively peaceful democratic government, things are going to be tight for a while. For…two years? I’d put my money on two years until people start getting REALLY upset that things aren’t going better. We were secure under Saddam, they’ll say. Never mind the genital electrocutions, there wasn’t crime in the streets like there is now, women weren’t walking around with short skirts, etc., etc. Whether it’s true or not, hindisght is rarely 20/20.
And then the rebellions start, and the democracy’s overthrown or taken over by a dictator. I’m thinking a theocratic revolution – remember Iran? Where the same thing happened, only we put up a monarch friendly to us instead? So – another theocracy, and one who hates the US because we brought them years of poverty and we’re a godless country anyway.
At least letting them have their own damn vote to start with might head some of that beastie off.
I didn´t knew he was degraded from colonel to a plain soldier after his death…
Jokes apart, we aren´t withdrawing our troops anyway, as we aren´t withdrawing them from Afghanistan and Bosnia.We are still allies, remmember that. And if we ain´t sendidng more troops is because we can´t do so due to national security issues.