Surprised there isnt a 10 page thread already.... (country, single, American)

[jibber]

U.S. Senate passes bill ordering Iraq pullout

attempt # 197,362,056,395,484 at a mature, intelligent, and informed political discussion on MB starts now.

annnnndddd go!

first off, any takers of a bush veto on this? It'll be interesting to see if he does veto it. He certainly wont agree, but there are more than a few higher up republicans who would support a pull out. they've been there far too long, it's time to get out let the "government" in iraq settle in *laugh*. The situation is a mess, but it's being complicated by the american troops being there. I certainly dont have a solution to the problem, and anyone who claims they do (on here anyways) is an idiot, but it's gotten far past the point where they can do any more help. The one question I have is, HOW could this administration have NOT see this coming? For CHIST'S SAKE you've got a country where the majority population has been oppressed by the minority for decades, these factions have been clashing since the birth of the Islamic religion. How can ANYONE in that administration think that "we didn't see this coming" is an acceptable response? Althouh, I must remember not to overestimate Bush's intelligence. This is the man after all who when told about the possible complications of Sunni and Shia feuds responded with "I thought they were all muslims over there". This is the same administration who was blind enough to believe that bringing democracy to this country after carpet bombing them would turn out to be a win-win situation. Of course its not, the curret "governent" wont last long. when the next government is voted in, what are the odds that after all this, a theocracy will take its place? I'm going with highly likely.

Too many civilians have died, too much money has been poured into this disaster of a war. The approach isnt working on any level. More american troops have died in the global war on terrorism than in the first 3 years of the vietnam war. Its not working, an entirely new strategy is needed to mend this now.

[Frances]

Originally Posted by jibber

I must remember not to overestimate Bush's intelligence. This is the man after all who when told about the possible complications of Sunni and Shia feuds responded with "I thought they were all muslims over there".

What a dumba$$!

I don't know the answer, it doesn't seem like it'll get better if they stay, and they've f**ked the situation up so much over there that they may as well try getting out.

Bush makes me want to

I hope those who voted for him feel like idiots, but the problem with idiots is they don't know they're idiots.

[adidasss]

I think they're savages and should be left to themselves. Wasting a single American life on such people was an unforgivable act. Savages need a crazy and ruthless dictator to manage them...

That said, I think Bush will probably veto it, far too much money has been invested into this affair to just let them revert to a theocracy and thus endanger the investment. They got what they wanted, a puppet government that will do what they're told, it's highly unlikely they'll just pull back now and let them do as they wish. Most of the violence is among the Iraqis themselves anyway, so it's not that similar to Vietnam. That was a carnage and America pulled back because they realized they couldn't win the war. This was is over...

[jibber]

^ They got a puppet government who has been suspected (with lots of evidence surrounding) of sponsoring death squads to kill supporters. How exactly is said "puppet government" to be of any use to the US if the country is running itself back to the stone ages with a bloody civil war. What war are you following when you say it's not over? The recent months have been some of the most deadly for american troops. And your attiutude towards the iraqi people is disgusting. There are hundreds of entirely innocent civilians being killed daily still.

[adidasss]

Originally Posted by jibber

^ They got a puppet government who has been suspected (with lots of evidence surrounding) of sponsoring death squads to kill supporters. How exactly is said "puppet government" to be of any use to the US if the country is running itself back to the stone ages with a bloody civil war. What war are you following when you say it's not over? The recent months have been some of the most deadly for american troops. And your attiutude towards the iraqi people is disgusting. There are hundreds of entirely innocent civilians being killed daily still.

I apologize if I came off unsympathetic. But the fact remains that this mayhem didn't exist when Saddam was at power. The differences between those two sects and their past is too great a burden, the carnage will continue indefinitely. The hate just runs too deep, and fundamentalism is still an alluring option to many...what do you think the reason for that is if not pure savagery and backwardness? I had a similar discussion on a different forum and it was suggested that the seed for this situation was set when Great Britain divided the country by privileging one of the sects, letting them govern the rest ruthlessly. So maybe the west does hold a lot of responsibility for the current situation, but I don't see what they can do to remedy it now. They're obviously incapable of resolving their issues civilly...

I see an endless cycle of violence...and I really don't know what anyone can do to stop it. Obviously international troops will need to stay for a lot longer...but forgive me for saying this, I certainly wouldn't sacrifice my life or anyone I know for those people. Why should Americans or any other nation that has troops there? It is a matter they need to figure out themselves...take their lives into their own hands for once...

As far as the war still going on, I agree, but from what I hear now it's a war amongst themselves. Much more Iraqis die than Americans...

A strong government would certainly be better than absolute mayhem, but I think the Americans' primary concern is securing the oil. And that they would have to do with soldiers and brute force regardless of whether the Iraqis were killing themselves or not. One thing the Iraqis do have in common is the hate for America (and probably all westerners, I haven't seen them discriminate too much on that basis). Their further presence there will only make the hate grow stronger.

In any case, it's 6am and I really shouldn't talk about an issue I have little to no real interest in. I end up spouting contradictory bullshit, like this post for instance...

[A_Perfect_Sonnet]

I think they're savages and should be left to themselves. Wasting a single American life on such people was an unforgivable act. Savages need a crazy and ruthless dictator to manage them...

adidasss: sociocentric bigot?

It's called a totalitarian state for a reason. When Saddam was in power, he could kill you for no reason, so of course there was order.

[adidasss]

Yes, and now that there's a "democracy", things are so much better...

[DontRunMeOver]

Originally Posted by adidasss

Yes, and now that there's a "democracy", things are so much better...

I know that adidasss previous posts were a complete mess (you know this too Marijan!), but this post was right on the ball.

Totalitarianism + the occasional dissenter being picked off > So-called 'democracy' which is actually violent anarchy + lots of people being killed every day.

You're right that the seed was planted when the UK designated countries according to which lines looked pretty on a map. The same thing has happened in Africa where tribes who have a history of fighting each other over land boundaries are suddenly told that they are actually part of the same country... while half of their own tribe now belongs to a different country.

While the UK (and other western countries) had a strong footing in these places the boundaries weren't necessarily stupid as they were convenient for administration but once the countries became more indepedent then those boundaries became completely impractical. Each individual groups has a pretty reasonable claim to the land which was already theirs, but the resistance of the governments who oversee those artifical boundaries and the fact that there might not be that much evidence as to exactly WHERE the original boundaries were makes it very difficult for the original countries to be reinstated. And the unfairness of this is a powerful spark for violence.

If you artificially create a new country through which run the boundaries of old countries... then you've created a war zone.

[adidasss]

Originally Posted by DontRunMeOver

I know that adidasss previous posts were a complete mess (you know this too Marijan!),

A complicated issue+vague opinions=bullshit posts.

[jibber]

Originally Posted by DontRunMeOver

I know that adidasss previous posts were a complete mess (you know this too Marijan!), but this post was right on the ball.

Totalitarianism + the occasional dissenter being picked off > So-called 'democracy' which is actually violent anarchy + lots of people being killed every day.

You're right that the seed was planted when the UK designated countries according to which lines looked pretty on a map. The same thing has happened in Africa where tribes who have a history of fighting each other over land boundaries are suddenly told that they are actually part of the same country... while half of their own tribe now belongs to a different country.

While the UK (and other western countries) had a strong footing in these places the boundaries weren't necessarily stupid as they were convenient for administration but once the countries became more indepedent then those boundaries became completely impractical. Each individual groups has a pretty reasonable claim to the land which was already theirs, but the resistance of the governments who oversee those artifical boundaries and the fact that there might not be that much evidence as to exactly WHERE the original boundaries were makes it very difficult for the original countries to be reinstated. And the unfairness of this is a powerful spark for violence.

If you artificially create a new country through which run the boundaries of old countries... then you've created a war zone.

thats not really the issue here. There's really no fighting over land rights as there is in palestine, it's pretty much all to do with the history of violence against different ethnic groups. For decades, the shias were persecuted by the minority sunnis, the kurds had been enduring a genocide for years as well, and now that the shias are finally in power, they're exacting revenge on the sunni community. It also creates an interesting dynamic with iran as well. You've got an extremely anti-american theocracy in iran, a country with approximately 90% shias. There's now an INCREDIBLY unstable and vulnerable shia government in Iraq. What a great situation bush has created here. It conveniently gives him more of a "reason" to create conflict with iran, as they're supplying arms to iraq. However, there seemed to have been no problem with the US supplying arms to iraq durring the iran/iraq war, or to the taliban when they were fighting russia....