Well, firstly, there are hundreds of US soldiers who have been killed in a war that has no clear goals other than installing democracy to a country that has no history of democracy and where democracy is unlikely to take root due to religious pressures. Also, there's no exit strategy and even if democracy does take root, the gains in terms of US strtegic goals are questionable at best. There is absolutely no precedent that shows that a democratic Iraq would be friendly to the US. In fact, in order to survive, a democratic Iraq would have to kowtow to religious leaders who have no reason to love the US. Then there's the fact that Iraq has become the world's best terrorist training camp, and the longevity of the insurgency is proof that the US military strategy is not working and that the remaining terrorists are, by reason of their survival, experts in anti-US military doctrine in the same way that the Viet Cong became experts at fighting the US in Vietnam. The view that we are 'kicking arse' given such a situation is myopic at best, and dangerous at worst. The US could easily lose its place as the world's remaining superpower if it continues to 'kick arse' in this way. These low intensity conflicts are precisely what lost the British their empire in the late 19th and early 20th century. The oft-quoted adage that 'Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it' is often true, but the less-quoted one that 'Those who repeat history are doomed to repeat it' is always true.

The question is, are the Americans ready to lose their empire?

It's what I wrote in my secund posting in the thread

One thing is planning for a the war, an another is the peace.

It seems that that USA haven't pointet out any goal what so ever

Markus

I disagree. I see the problem in Iraq is that the US did not anticipate the post-invasion terrorism that Iraq still endures.

Another mistake is imagining that western style democracy and an Islamic Sha'aria state go together like Laurel and Hardy. :nope:

The goals are too grandeur and utopian.

Uh. Yeah. :shifty: :roll:

whoops one too many

This isn't nazi germany, this isn't viet nam nor is the United States an empire.

Kicking arse in my book is defending those desiring to move on with their lives and killing islamofacists.

Do soldiers die when doing this? Yes they do just as like police officers do when doing doing their duty. Both jobs are voluntary and everyone knows what the risks are.

Who says were leaving? How come nobody is wondering what our exit strategy is in Japan or Germany? Heck we been there since 1945 and I haven't heard a peep. I'll tell you , those who forget the past are condemmed to repeat it.

Will we suceed? Good question, I hope so

I never said it was either.

LOL. Suuuure. Next you'll be telling me you've never heard the term 'Pax Americana', and if you have, perhaps you can convince me that it doesn't refer directly to both the British and Roman Empire.

Exactly.

As far as "moving on with their lives" - that's not a consequence of US involvement, that's a consequence of human nature. People have moved on in worse conditions. But the fact that there are very deadly terrorist attacks against Iraqi people every day doesn't work one bit to prove that the US involvement is doing much good for the Iraqi people except, perhaps, slightly holding back the immediate prospect of civil war. Which isn't yet a guarantee it won't happen.

This isn't a good time to pass final judgement on Bush; the repercussions of this administration's actions have not yet reached their real results. What those results will be only time will tell. What one can't deny is
1) The policy pursued by this administration is not a good solution for everyone and has not been supported by everyone;
2) This administration has lied, repeatedly, to support this policy (which is nothing new to world history, I assure you!);
3) This administration is responsible, directly or indirectly, for deaths of thousands of innocent people, either by its actions or by failing to do something while in pursuit of its policies (which, again, is nothing shockingly new).

To those who see these means as leading to a good end, should this good end come, the end result may be satisfactory. To others these means will never be justified (myself included).

America? *Spit*

George Bush? *PUKE*

Any questions?

I repeat!

'nuf said

Somehow I think I'd rather fight for someone who wants to live. :) :yep:

A very good post for a six year old. Congratulations. :roll:

That should be conservative values, military-industrial complex and multinational corporations that are on the side of President Bush. :roll:

It's beyond mere fact that he lied about the facts, repeatedly. It's an axiom. I said this above, and I'll repeat it: there is nothing new about this in politics. This doesn't make him a bad politician. But I think trying to put forward Bush as the patron saint of "truth, honesty and facts" isn't going to convince anyone contrary to evidence.

IMHO, if truth, honesty and facts were higher on his list than conservative values, military-industrial complex and multinational corporations, then we'd probably be much closer to getting some of the present issues in the world resolved :hmm:

Right! Like Richard I of England. Oh, wait, he just went home after he failed.

2 cent comments:

1.) Being overpatriotic, or blind patriotism, is a bad thing.

2.) Truth/honesty, and ANY politiican do not belong together in the same sentence. Also, facts to a poltiican often come in the form of statistics. N'uff said.