Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Oct 23, 2005.
We need to get the hell out. Now. You cannot win, there is no victory, with the majority of the population opposed to being "liberated".
less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security;
43 per cent of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened
Those two results seem a little odd. I wonder how the questions were exactly phrased. For the second, the key would be since when?
I guarantee that if all the coalition troops pull out now. Iraq will erupt into some kind of civil war.
Your average Iraqi has what kind of education?
Where passion and ignorance rules the day, you can only imagine what is to come in a region like that.
You'd think that these people would want peace, any kind of peace, after the likes of Saddam and the Iraq/Iran war but they seem to have that short-term memory that can get the best of any us.
Either they believe that they can actually take care of things themselves; or they just flat out resent us and their pride is wishing us out no matter the ramifications.
You wanna know why we're losing? Americans are this ignorant about a country they are trying to control.
This applies to the USA more than Iraq.
As it will if they don't. Your point is?
Why is this relevant?
I refer to the excellent answer above.
"These people" again? "These people" want control over their lives, like any of us.
They can see clearly that we can't "take care of things". And they flat out resent us, as would any nation under military occupation, with an ineffective and corrupt puppet government and an economy shot to pieces.
And if we stay, Iraq continues to fight its civil war, the US as well.
Dammit, you beat me to that comment!
The sickening reality is that Bush and Blair have staked their own personal reputations on a "successful" outcome in Iraq. IMO this means they would rather string out a prolonged unsuccessful military campaign until they both leave office rather than assessing the best interests of all the parties involved - the Iraqis (and their oil reserves), the coalition military personnel and the US/UK taxpayers (who are underwriting this farce to the benefit of a few US companies).
Well, their careers clearly come first. Be fair.
i am not sure about blair, but the bushies were in it for the money. and they made out like bandits
Why is the solution always more oil, and not more efficient use of the oil we already have access to.
Stretching the efficiency of supplies we already have would mean less growth for the industry. But considering that it is a limited resource that gets harder and harder to extract, it makes sense to be conservative about oil use so that we make the most of it, while it lasts.
It also makes sense to develop alternative forms so that when the need for transition comes, it is a smooth one.
I guess the need for ever increasing profits trumps all else though.
This is one of those periods where people will back on and wonder how it was people thought that way.
Like when I learn that people used to think the earth was flat, or that bleeding was an effective treatment for the Bubonic plague. Rather than simply lancing the boils, which came later and was a lot more effective. The power of faith can be a scary thing.
It's been more than 50 years since the world had a good dust up though, maybe it's time, or maybe it's going on right now.
As opposed to? How are we doing there right now? Apparently... not so good.
Your average American has what kind of education?
There's no good answer. If we leave, yes, Iraq could turn to civil war and possibly become the next Afghanistan - taliban training base, and the first major victory for Al Queda.
The problem is, if we stay - things could get worse. A lot worse. Do you think its conceivable that you could turn on the TV tomorrow and find out that an entire US camp has been overrun and two thousand US troops have been killed and eight hundred have been taken prisoner? Dien Bien Phu ring a bell?
As it is, we're not winning the war, which is always the first thing that happens before you start losing a war.
Not that I have any real knowledge of the subject, but I doubt it could get to that stage. I think another Lebanon-style lucky, well-placed bomb attack could kill a couple hundred US troops. There have been many many close calls on that front, with tens of troops killed at once (like that one in a mess hall?), or the downing of troop-laden helicopters. But this is not Vietnam. US/British troops are not facing "regulars". And while Syria, Iran, and militant networks may be providing arms, that doesn't compare to China and the USSR supplying arms, tanks, missile systems, etc. The insurgents also don't have the ability to raise troops like the VC/VM did. I just can't see Iraqi insurgents emerging in anywhere near enough numbers to take on a fortified US base, seige it, conquer it, and have large numbers of US troops surrender. Furthermore, the US isn't anywhere near making a last stand, as Dien Bien Phu was. US troops aren't holing up anywhere, they're out there running patrols every day.
FWIW, Rwanda has a higher literacy rate than Iraq.
FWIW, Turkmenistan has a higher literacy rate than the USA...
Official. I'd bet dollars to donuts that reality doesn't come close. Didn't Turkmenbashi close all the libraries in the country outside the capital (along with closing all the hospitals outside the capital).
Come to Ashgabat!
No really. Come to Ashgabat. Now.
Is anyone really surprised?
Bush just wishes he was polling this high.
how true how true!
more the our troops lives?
Certainly. There can be no other explanation.