Iraq

In the minds of most, we are bad for being on top.

If we allow them to go back to a dictatorship, we will be later accused of doing a half-job.

If we use the resources and help them establish a democracy, we are helping them to enable their own system.

We are there for economic reasons and well as political reasons, just go to the countries that go to war for no economic reason and you'll see a country that has no internet and all the other "benefits" we use everyday but are somehow "ashamed" of the tactics used.

They have been infighting there for a very long time, and part of it is b/c of the Bedouin mentality, which states

"I against my brothers, I and my brothers against my cousins, I and my brothers and my cousins against the world".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedouin

If people are warring with one another, and cultivate a war like mentality, tribal infighting, how much time do they have to make good of their resources? Exactly. And they've been fighting BEFORE the "empiricist" of the British Empire. The bombers are partially jealous b/c they know that outsiders are going to use the resources they were never able to figure b/c they were too busy fighting. It's as if me and you were fighting for hundreds of years, and then, a third party comes in, sees we aren't using land (gold, diamonds, coal), and starts to make way with it, somehow, this entire thing theme seems familiar, so what we do is get our children to bomb themselves so that we don't let them get away with the goods, as we continue arguing amongst ourselves.

Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
In the minds of most, we are bad for being on top.

If we allow them to go back to a dictatorship, we will be later accused of doing a half-job.

If we use the resources and help them establish a democracy, we are helping them to enable their own system.

We are there for economic reasons and well as political reasons, just go to the countries that go to war for no economic reason and you'll see a country that has no internet and all the other "benefits" we use everyday but are somehow "ashamed" of the tactics used.

They have been infighting there for a very long time, and part of it is b/c of the Bedouin mentality, which states

"I against my brothers, I and my brothers against my cousins, I and my brothers and my cousins against the world".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedouin

If people are warring with one another, and cultivate a war like mentality, tribal infighting, how much time do they have to make good of their resources? Exactly. And they've been fighting BEFORE the "empiricist" of the British Empire. The bombers are partially jealous b/c they know that outsiders are going to use the resources they were never able to figure b/c they were too busy fighting. It's as if me and you were fighting for hundreds of years, and then, a third party comes in, sees we aren't using land (gold, diamonds, coal), and starts to make way with it, somehow, this entire thing theme seems familiar, so what we do is get our children to bomb themselves so that we don't let them get away with the goods, as we continue arguing amongst ourselves.

What a stupid post, Iraq is only Iraq because of the borders created there. The three mayor population groups don't get along never did, but normally they wouldn't have too as they weren't supposed to be part of one state. They are now.

The problem in Iraq lies with the three population groups and the borders the western world created for them. The borders back then were perfect they would ensure that the country could never become to powerful because there would always be large groups that would hate each other. A smart idea, something that's coming back to hunt them now. In order to fix Iraq you would need to fix the borders, in order to fix the borders you would have to piss of Turkey and make Iran more powerful.

In other words, it's an impossible situation. The US can't do it right. The only solution is to install another more pro US/western Saddam. Otherwise this situation will just continue, unfortunately for the US installing another person like Saddam would never be accepted because that's the one reason you people have left to justify the war.

Originally posted by Fishy
What a stupid post, Iraq is only Iraq because of the borders created there. The three mayor population groups don't get along never did, but normally they wouldn't have too as they weren't supposed to be part of one state. They are now.

The problem in Iraq lies with the three population groups and the borders the western world created for them. The borders back then were perfect they would ensure that the country could never become to powerful because there would always be large groups that would hate each other. A smart idea, something that's coming back to hunt them now. In order to fix Iraq you would need to fix the borders, in order to fix the borders you would have to piss of Turkey and make Iran more powerful.

In other words, it's an impossible situation. The US can't do it right. The only solution is to install another more pro US/western Saddam. Otherwise this situation will just continue, unfortunately for the US installing another person like Saddam would never be accepted because that's the one reason you people have left to justify the war.

you people??

The US government and all other people that still justify the war.

Originally posted by Fishy
The US government and all other people that still justify the war.

why is fighting against a cause a power play on your part? let me guess: feels kinda nice to tear something down, huh?

war is never a good thing.

we are in this for our benefit and also, we don't want to leave the place like it was the last time, remember? people started complaining that the job wasn't right and should have taken down Sadam then, and once that was done, it was still more people within the same society they benefit from in this war, complaining again and again and again. all complaints but no true blue way of solving anything, just talk.

just for the record:

I can't promote any war, and that includes the war in Iraq b/c war itself is so terrible, so just to clarify, it's a tough situation, as when we were there before, there was a lot of pressure to pull out, and we did. then, we were blamed for pulling out, and should have stayed (even though people were telling us to pull out).

It grieves me to know that this is going on, if someone has a better solution, do tell, and I am not being sarcastic, would really be interesting to read. And sorry if I ever seemed as if I was promoting the war OR any war for that matter!!

actually, the only problem with that explanation is that america's participation is actively making the region worse as opposed to contributing at all to anything resembling DAMAGE CONTROL. if america stays, the situation will surely only worsen. CAN america make it better with staying, YES. WILL IT? absolutely no, that isnt the objective, its quite the opposite, there is no will, nor desire for those in command to make it better, only worse.

Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
why is fighting against a cause a power play on your part? let me guess: feels kinda nice to tear something down, huh?

war is never a good thing.

we are in this for our benefit and also, we don't want to leave the place like it was the last time, remember? people started complaining that the job wasn't right and should have taken down Sadam then, and once that was done, it was still more people within the same society they benefit from in this war, complaining again and again and again. all complaints but no true blue way of solving anything, just talk.

What the hell are you trying to say here? That the war is benefiting Iraq? That Saddam gone is benefiting Iraq? If so, please explain how, because the situation there absolutely sucks.

If not then what? Because I honestly don't understand.

just for the record:

I can't promote any war, and that includes the war in Iraq b/c war itself is so terrible, so just to clarify, it's a tough situation, as when we were there before, there was a lot of pressure to pull out, and we did. then, we were blamed for pulling out, and should have stayed (even though people were telling us to pull out).

It grieves me to know that this is going on, if someone has a better solution, do tell, and I am not being sarcastic, would really be interesting to read. And sorry if I ever seemed as if I was promoting the war OR any war for that matter!!

Now this post I understand, when you were there before you left a country in tact with a leader. Everybody hated that leader that much was for sure, but at least the country was still in tact. If you would retreat now it would leave a destroyed leaderless country, huge difference between the two. Everybody can and could see that.

Now you want a solution? I have two for you.

1.) Split the country in three, one part gets it independance, this group has oil and will accept it. One group goes to Iran, this group becomes part of a powerful country with oil and will accept it, third part goes to the Kurds, this group will love having their own country. Of course there are some huge downsides to this, especially the fact that Iran will become more powerful then before something the US definitely doesn't want, and an independant Kurdistan will piss of the Turks beyond believe, and they are a very important ally to the US and most NATO country's.

Meaning that this will simply never happen.

2.) Install someone like Saddam, a religious and or cultural leader that will work with the US in minor ways, supply him with weapons and troops and let him mercifully kill all opposition while you sit back and do nothing. Thousands will die, be imprisoned and executed but it will likely stabalize the country.

The big problem here is that Iran wouldn't like it if some Sunni guy would take control of the country making it very possible an another enemy for Iraq, and creating the possibility of war the second the US leaves. And they likely wouldn't go back into the region to defend a dictator from the power of Iran. A Shi'ite however wouldn't make the majority of the country happy. And certainly wouldn't make organizations like Al-Qaeda happy who are very powerful in the country at this moment. Meaning that you are going to have a powerful opposition and possibly many years of small civil unrest and bombings.

So your only option here is to create a state that would threaten Iran, and there is a chance that they would soon attack Iraq when the US leaves. But hey you would be gone so not really a problem anymore.

I don't even understand what the hell she is trying to say here. I'm guessing she says we should gone in to Iraq in the first place (although a "dictatorship" or as Bush called it "regime" was not the point in going - it was terrorism; "free the people" came as a ploy later) ...

I'm totally lost after that

Jesus Sez he hates Iraq and trusts his child, Bush, will atomic bomb it!

Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
war is never a good thing.

Originally posted by §P0oONY
Wrong! World War II as an example to prove the quoted point wrong.

... go on

Originally posted by chithappens
... go on

There is diffrence between "good thing" and "lesser evil." I agree that war is never a good thing.

What is happening in Iraq was unavoidable. Even if the U.S had not intervened and unintentionally triggered the guerilla violence, all those groups would have ended up fighting it out eventually anyways, in a possibily much larger and much more terrible battle where no foreign security would be there to stop it.

Saddam maybe saved a few lives with a dictatorship that massacred people and ground up political prisoners, but that doesnt mean the problem was solved. The Islamic faith is at a time where they are fighting thier "crusade" against the world and as always, against themselves (several hundred years too late of course). A dictator could have stopped that from happening eventually, because eventually Saddam would have died before naming one of his sons the next ruler and they would have fought eachother for power, and in time it would have been a REAL civil war and anarchy and all this would have started anyways.

Originally posted by Lord Melkor
There is diffrence between "good thing" and "lesser evil." I agree that war is never a good thing.

Originally posted by §P0oONY
War is not evil. It's unavoidable and usually justified.

Well I don't think there is a universal evil so I follow that. "Unavoidable and justified" - WTF are you talking about?

Originally posted by chithappens
Well I don't think there is a universal evil so I follow that. "Unavoidable and justified" - WTF are you talking about?

Originally posted by §P0oONY
War is not evil. It's unavoidable and usually justified. No matter which side you fall on you believe you're doing it for the greater good... That in my opinion is a good thing.

War is NEVER justified. Just because the peole who fought in it THOUGHT it was justified doesn't mean it IS jestified. Killing another person is never justified.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
What is happening in Iraq was unavoidable. Even if the U.S had not intervened and unintentionally triggered the guerilla violence, all those groups would have ended up fighting it out eventually anyways, in a possibily much larger and much more terrible battle where no foreign security would be there to stop it.

Saddam maybe saved a few lives with a dictatorship that massacred people and ground up political prisoners, but that doesnt mean the problem was solved. The Islamic faith is at a time where they are fighting thier "crusade" against the world and as always, against themselves (several hundred years too late of course). A dictator could have stopped that from happening eventually, because eventually Saddam would have died before naming one of his sons the next ruler and they would have fought eachother for power, and in time it would have been a REAL civil war and anarchy and all this would have started anyways.

bull. it was completely avoideable. and your whole argument falls apart cause those GROUPS never fought in the long rule of his and the only fighting was with KUWAIT and IRAN and those internal groups were not included in that. those GROUPS are being made to fight indirectly by the occupiers.

and there was one very easy way to deal with the whole thing. assasinate saddam and his sons. then assasinate any new similar leader that came from the group. furthermore, manipulate the UN, to describe saddam's entire party as terrorists and demand their retrieval, if itwasnt done, sanctions, then more assasination. america is MORE than capable of doing such things. heck israel does em all the time{albiet for more evil perposes than what i mentioned here}.