Report: Saudis warn they may back Sunnis (if US pulls troops out to quickly)

I am not American and I honestly don't care about the war in Iraq. However American policies do affect me. Right now as a freelancer I would like a strong US with a strong dollar as that is the currency in which I receive my paychecks. You might not be aware of it now, but Bush has all but demolished the prestige of its country and with it its financial power. This is why I think that pulling out of Iraq now would be disastrous as it would further demolish the prestige of US. A mixed strategy of diplomacy and force would be the only reasonable answer in the current situation.

Best regards, George

 

If the mayor found out that the entire police force was corrupt and taking drug money to beat people behind in protection payments, would it really be a bad thing to bring in outside enforcement, to try to keep the crime rate from rising TO much while he gutted out the corruption, and started getting a new police force trained?

 

Okay he fired a dictator. Bush didn't make 10-20k of these people crazy....they were that way long before he came. No, I will not blame him for that. That's delusional.

You want to blame Roosevelt for the genocide Hitler did? Hitler offered to send all the jews to america, and Roosevelt declined....does that mean Roosevelt is responsible for Hitler's actions? No,...that's common-sense....Hitler and his dumb-ass henchmen are responsible.

 

Not to say I doubt you, but how do you KNOW this?

 

I think currency may have been a small factor in this war. The petrodollar.

 

America was alot worse off right after its cival war. Does that mean that the Civil War was a failure?

 

Interesting analogy.

Civil war started really based on manipulation. Lincoln initially wanted try to reason things out with the south, and was willing to let go of many of the forts. Then New York started to really go crazy, and talks of secession were ring-out there. Lincoln truely was starting to see the Union fall apart. He made a practical and very amoral chose to keep it together at almost any cost. He would disregard former promise to relieve fort sumter, and thus have his war.

Riots broke out in New York, and Lincoln put his army in to quell the disturbance...forcing everyone to enlist. Then he took on four states that he thought could possible go to the south. He occupied and enlisted them to keep it together. He threw-in 10's of thousand of people in jail...mostly journalists w/little or no legal authority.

His war killed around 500k soldiers and one million civilians. It grazed whole towns to the ground, and eventually led to the genocide of the American Indians (via northern generals). When Lincoln was murdered, his predessors were much more harsh...they bled the south of their riches via high taxes, and killed any former southern powers. They passed constitutional amendment via mandatory requirements of surrender.

All of this really sounding and being horrendous in it's time. Literally, if these liberals of today whine about Bush, they'd feel raped under Lincoln. Yet Lincoln did something that history deems moral and right, even though the means was very 'immoral'.

I don't like what Lincoln did...far more than Bush. But in the end, Lincoln's results were a much more honest view of what the Constitution originally desired (but ultimately comprised). Slavery would have eventually ended...perhaps 20-30 years down the road (without the war), but I firmly believe that black americans wouldn't remotely have the rights they have now. Perhaps they'd just be catching-up. Perhaps.

I don't know. It's very probable that this nation wouldn't span from sea to shine sea. It's very probable we'd be a lot like old-Europe...split-up and constantly in war.

I don't know how history will view Bush. I doubt they'll rely on current liberal standards, as some generally look-up to Lincoln and down-upon what made him successful. The oddity of their current philosophy, are a flimsy foundation of judgement. Lincoln's legacy was truely his decesiveness, at all costs. For good or for bad, he was going to win. If Bush wants a Lincoln-like legacy, his intentions don't have to be good at all (Lincoln's weren't),...he just has to suceed.

I'm guessing Lincoln didn't have to worry about constant media attention...he'd have them arrested..lol. Not that Bush should ever...ever...ever...repeat any of Lincoln's actions, he damn sure better emulate them as reasonable possible. In the end, it's not the polls, it's the long-term results which history will look at.

 

oh yeah just want to say

anyone who equates Iraq civil war with ours is mostly wrong

they are totally differenet, they fight for different reasons, religious reasons, they have an outside army occupying their country, and there are numerous forces outside the country trying to influence what goes on in Iraq

 

Your arguements are always loose-minded, ferret. Wake-up and smell the reason. No one is saying they're identical. If anything, some Americans bare similiar emotions towards our current war in Iraq, as southerns did towards Lincoln. They essential desire for it to go away, but it doesn't.

My mini-historical review just puts this conflict in perspective. It basically reveals a simple truth...historical opinion is built upon those whom win, not whether they're moral or not.

-------------------------------------------
I wonder. When I read your response(s) I feel like I'm reading from someone whom just likes writing something that has nothing to do with what's said... or just likes to fart whatever comes out of their brain. 95% of the time I understand what you're saying, but you always seem to go on weird tangents from the original point. Could it be 1)You don't want to stick to the point so you create a new arguement 2)You aren't all that bright 3)You like being a dick 4)You have a problem with your attention span.

 

This, and minor variations of, is probably the most requently used phrase in the P&R section any more. Ping, I'm not trying to isolate you here or just point it out because of you, it's just an observation I've noticed for the past month or two in many posts by many different posters.

See if you can notice it. Just watch for any variation, of "Saddam was {insert something not terribly demeaning here}, followed by ", but..."

It's really amazing how often it is used anymore.

 

um ...

he just said

not sure how pointing at the differences between the two wars is off topic, it seems to be popular debate to compare iraqs civil war to ours , like they are similiar

ie: We had a civil war and we are ok therefore Iraqi can have civil war and they will be ok

 

Okay chief...no entiendo, eh?

No where is he saying these wars are exactly the same, which is the basis of your waste-of-time response. It's a false arguement, thus my reply...duhhh.

Because your wasting people's time. Any moron can see there were different reasons and circumstances. If they can't...tell me who they are...and I kill them. They don't deserve to live.

If one creates an interesting analogy, you can't simply nullify them because they aren't exactly the same. Nothing is exactly the same. Might as well never bring-up other historical events, because Ferret thinks they don't equate. Guess what, they won't ever perfectly... equate.

It's a very limited context question, which is supposed to make you think.

You had to state the obvious, and nullify the historical relations. I remember someone once stated, that if you can get people to forget the past, you can control their perception of the present; but if you understand the past, you have better perception on how subjective some can view the present.