So what exactly will happen if sending more troops doesn't help? What will the move be then? Republicans have been pretty much wrong about every aspect of this war from the start, there is a pretty good chance they are wrong about his also. Lets say just for debate, that more troops are sent in, and not really much changes, some more people on each side get killed, but pretty much everything stays screwed up, what then? Send even more troops?
To answer your question I have to mention the following first (for those who don't know)... U.S helped Kuwait in the Gulf war get rid of Saddam Hussein. U.S did not do that because they were in love with the Kuwaiti people or cared about the dead. They did it because the two countries formed an alliance and Kuwait agreed to pay all of U.S costs back (mainly with cheap oil), and allow them to have bases in Kuwait for future.... It is the same with Iraq. Iraq is in so much debt right now that it will not be free for the next century. That is the whole point (the new American Empire). Now back to your question, The war in Iraq can stop only and only if U.S leaves Iraq. Iraqis do not feel that U.S is doing anything for them, and don't want an invader (that's how they see U.S troops) in their country. They can't fight back militarily so they turn to suicide bombing. However, U.S has spent way too much money in Iraq and is not about to back down. Because they need to be there to secure the oil and return of their money. I personally don't blame U.S too much. It's a world just like it was during the last centuries. The stronger countries attacking weaker ones and taking their resources. That is how the world has been and will stay that way. This is just the modern version of empires. What i hate is when Bush comes out and talks as if he started the war to free the Iraqi people and the fact that he did it for the world's good. What I tell him, if you are a dictator at least have the balls to accept it and back it up. Don't bring up excuses...
The US and the others inveded to remove Saddam. Saddam was the main hurdle for democracy. A democracy is less likely to be a danger for the other countries. All the evil countries in the world are not democracies. Democracy means freedom. Freedom may have costs. Costs could be in money, resources and lives. Most countries have gone through this at some stage. Iraq is ahead of many other neighbouring countries in that sense. Iran will have to wait for that. Iraq has a rare opportunity. Maybe the allies overlooked the fact that they only heard about democracy, and to make things worse, mostly in a bad way. Iraqis do not believe in democracy because it's not part of their culture. Most Iraqis abroad are not planning to go back, even though there are so many resources (oil). It's because it's going to take time... AND MANY MORE TROOPS! SEND 200,000, NOT 20,000! And plenty of ammunition too! Down with opportunistic terrorists!
Freedom is choice...which is something the Iraqi people never had. They never had the opportunity to vote, or to say bad things about the Govt. If they did, Saddam would just kill them. Choice/Freedom is what they are starting to receive. I still find it interesting that most people think a democracy can happen overnight...heck, even over 200 years ago when the USA was set up, it didn't happen over night. And that was before islamic terrorism.
they have said all along....it's not going to be nearly as easy as the 72 hour invasion part of the campaign. do you think that if it miraculously ended tomorrow they would be satisfied? the anti-Bushers....no, they'd find something else to bitch about!
I want to add something to that d16man, Saddam killed, even for no reason at all, or rather, to keep people in fear of him. Now, I believe WMD were there, no evidence needed to prove that because they were used. Only point would be if any were left, but as I keep saying, they are either hidden in Iraq, or most likely in Iran/Syria. But why the heck did we need the WMD excuse or reason to remove Saddam? He was a WMD himself! You can always say that the US went in because of the oil, but there was no oil in Afghanistan and if the UN would allow to do so, they would remove every single dictator in the world. And obviously the UN should foot the bill too. Basically the UN is in the way for a really free world. I wonder why...
Freedom is choice? Ok. Even though I think this definition lacks a lot, but Iraqi people made their choice and spoke out, that they DONT want American troops in their country... How about respecting that? oh, Palestinians voted for Hamas (THEIR CHOICE), but no one is the world accepted the new government. That is because NOTHING is about democracy. It is about politics and money... Take your head out and stop defending those who only think about their own powers and their own pockets
Very hopefully so, but the UN cannot work in my view. Not now, not as it is. It's mainly useful as a meeting place for diplomats, otherwise many countries such as the US and the UK should pullout. It's useless with the terrorist threat. Actually it can only help it. So...
U.S never listened to U.N... so let's make that clear. Secondly, There was no oil in Afghanistan, but in order for U.S to be just to attack Iraq, they had to go to Afghanistan first (as that was where Osama was). They couldn't just go straight to Iraq. That is exactly why Afghanistan is forgotten now... Again, and again, this war is not about freedom, is not about WMDs, is not about anything but Money, Power, and Religion.
The US did listen that's why it took so long, and gave Saddam a chance, at least to get rid of the WMD (that he was brave enough to use against civilians, but not the Allies) Secondly, there was no oil, but they did go right? They did liberate it right? But listen to me a moment, why are terrorists a lot more active in Iraq then? Maybe because there's oil, right? It's a strong possibility, think about it for a few seconds... And Afghanistan is not forgotten, they are doing their job over there. And I don't think it's strange that the French aren't doing anything, while the UK is doing so much recently! And yes, everybody likes money and power, religion is just used to achieve the former...
No, let's make it clear that the UN was being bought off with oil vouchers and were profitting from the oil-for-food scandal. The UN was as corrupt and dirty with saddam as many of our allies were.
Do you care about other people's pockets? That's because there are many in need out there, including Iraq, Africa, etc... Or is it that you would like to force others to hand out money? Now that's NOT freedom... Also, the Iraqi government, is something unheard of not only in Iraq, but in the entire region. You know why? Because it was elected! Oh my god! The first step towards democracy? Something to be afraid of, right? Anyway, the problem is that they don't want the US to leave! They would be slaughtered and the survivors go back to an even darker age than before... You all know that, but it's frustrating that the US are going to have to be credited first of all for doing something, secondly for achieving something and seriously diminishing the role of the UN, that cannot get any results!
LOL. Have you ever considered a change of career? I mean you are so funny. Most of the comedy clubs would love to have a stand up comedian like you. ROFL.
I don't know of a thread ever being deleted...locked is another thing! but why would you want such an entertaining piece locked???
Our democratic politicians are so full of BS back in 2004 Kerry stated all throughout the campaign trail that we need more troops,and Madam Pelosi was even on Meet the Press bad mouthing Bush and saying the only way to win in Iraq was to put more boots on the ground. Now that Bush is doing just that, they are all of a sudden against the idea. Meet the Press transcript