It's an abstraction. :ph34r:

The ancient Greeks fought for "freedom". They even had a god of freedom, Eleutherios. When they defeated the Persians about 2500 years ago many formed a cult of Freedom. They built a temple and everything. I think it's still standing. Socrates used to hang out there telling everyone how ignorat he was . For some reason this made everyone that met him feel stupid. Later some people got annoyed with him and killed him.

What is everyone's thought on how America HELPED democratize Germany, Japan and Italy? In hindsight were those "good" decisions? Did the Allied forces (and specifically America because it was a majority of US funds that were used to help construct those new democracies) have any choice but to do it? What would the World look like had the US not assisted in that endeavor.

It certainly sickens me when I see US soldiers and citizens being killed. But, look back over a year ago when many people were asking (paraphrasing and yes it is a sick question) "How many US soldiers would you be willing to "give up" in order to see Sadam overthrown and a democracy in Iraq?" The numbers were usually well into the thousands. I myself thought that we would lose a number that was similar to the CIA projected number of 10k.

But aren't all these arguments subject to the end result. If Iraq can't be "democratized" because of history, religion, conditioning and tradition then the US going in would have been a disaster whether we lost 1 person or 100,000. If the US is successful then in 20 years this will be a successful campaign no matter how many losses. So, I believe the ends really do justify the means - in hindsight of course.

Not "IF you fuck it up THEN too bad we're going home" but .. "We're going home, if you fuck it up after that, too bad". There is no more occupation in my 90 day plan. The end.

Maybe we'll go back in 20 years? Maybe, maybe not. Sometimes you fight the enemy more than once. That's why wars have numbers. ;-)[/b][/quote]
Even those who are too stupid, too educated, or too sophisticated to believe that leaving Iraq to the chaos and ethno/religous conflict that would ensue if we walked away now would be unethical, surely from a tactical perspective they (except, perhaps, the stupid) can understand that it would not serve the intersts of the United States to do it.

It was 12 years (my mistake), not 20, between the end of the proxy war and the reinvasion of Afghanistan. Afghanistan sits between nowhere and noplace (Pakistan and Iran) on top of ... nothing. Poppies and mountains.

Iraq sits between hotspots like Iran, Syria, and Turkey on top of one hell of a lot of a substance that we are far more addicted to than opium. The probability that something far worse than Saddam could operate in the midst of the chaos that would ensue from walking away now is way too great to take the risk.

Do it now, or do it later ... and who knows what the cost in lives will be later. The cost in transport alone would make it worth it to finish it right.

What the hell does that mean?

Jesse,

One only needs to look to Iraq's Northern border for a model democratic Muslim nation. Iraq has the double edged sword of Islamism and pan-Arabism to contend with. We'll see. My opinion is that sometimes such things turn out for the better and sometimes not. It's too complicated for anyone to confidently predict.

Regression towards the mean though. The odds that Iraq will end up worse without Saddam than with him is pretty low.

Will we be back to Iraq again? No idea. We'll be back in the Middle East again. Somewhere, sometime. Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Syria. Of course we will.

I didn't say "leave today". I said "hurry up". If we're turning Iraq over to an Iraqi government in 90 days they can police the place too. This is now a police action and the Iraqi police should handle it.

Got Sunnis in your sandbox? Call 9-1-1.

Consider lasik surgery to replace the rose colored glasses. While I don't think its as far removed from reality as Cheney/MacRumsfeld's "parades to greet the liberators", it's in the neighborhood.

How many people would have predicted that the fall of Communism would have resulted in the mess formerly known as Yugoslovia?

You really do seem to be advocating a 1989 Afghanistan policy. I think that's as foolhardy as the jingoistic facade of a policy that's gotten us here.

I find it amazing that only a few months ago a majority (small majority at just over 50%) thought their lives were already better than when Saddam was in power. In this is still with the US there, this is after the US dropped tons of bombs on them and their country is a disaster. I think that says something. The number will obviously fluctuate with the things that are going on the country. If the "Insurgence" get more of a foothold then that number will go down. If the US gains "control" again them that number will probably go up.

Nearly all policies look bad in hindsight because the world changes. What can I say? I think supporting an enemy of the USSR was a really good idea in 1989.

So what if the Yugo region is STILL a mess. Are you saying you'd rather have the USSR back and events like the Cuban Missile Crisis rather than "the mess formerly known as Yugoslovia"?

I don't know what world you live in. In mine, the land once known as Yugoslavia has been a damned mess for 1000 years - excepting the Pax Ottoman Empire. I'll take who was Gavrilo Princip for $1000, Alex?



Last edited by Colin at Apr 9 2004, 01:08 PM

Colin, your correct. The ever changing political and religeous landscape in this area makes finding a successful outcome all but impossible. Like it or not, this is a section of the world that isn't happier with dictators, but they tend to work better when they have someone to tell them what to do.

No matter when the US decides to leave, it is only a matter of time before the next civil war / coup / overthrow / religeous takeover. The only real question will be which way the "victor" will lean.

Freedom cannot be ordered.

Alex

Yes, Colin, the Balkans have been a clusterfuck for a thousand years. My point is that walking away now without stabilizing Iraq would put whoever did that in the position of Gavrilo Princip with pair of nuclear detonations instead of a pair of pistol shots.

It can be argued that Gavrilo Princip is the founder of both Yugoslovia and Iraq ... since the little conflict he helped spark lead to the creation of both artificial countries.

I cannot guarantee that a post WWII style occupation of Iraq would, even after 10 or 20 years, eliminate the possibilty that Iraq won't follow the path that Yugoslovia did.

I can almost guarantee you that walking away now would ensure it. While I think that the proponents of the war as an imperialist exercise are about as out of touch with reality as the Flat Earth Society, they do have a point - the stability of the region is important because of the oil.

Did anyone else just hurt themselves? I hurt my elbow when I fell to the ground in astonishment.

PD,

Your momma wears army boots. You make good points. I give it 180 days instead of 90. When's the election again?

You leave my momma outta this ...

and if you're going to pull out in 180 days you absolutely HAVE to use the term "Peace With Honor."

It's an American tradition.

btw, Colin ... I wasn't expecting to see the term "Pan-Arabism" show up in the discussion on Oprano. Not as surprising as someone attacking the proponents of the Iraqi excursion as justifable imperialism as neo-colonialists, perhaps, but still unexpected.

I like the music.

http://www.arableagueonline.org/arableague...flash4page.html