Why did Bush take Irak?

[mog]

Originally Posted by Beery

If you don't think the US has the power to remove those politicians in an instant, you are living in a dreamworld. Fortunately, the US has a commitment to democracy.

Precisely; the US has the military power but can't exercise it. In other words, the US does not control Iraq.

Unless you're suggesting that America will forcefully overthrow the Iraqi government, which is an extraordinary claim that must require extraordinary evidence.

[kholemann]

Originally Posted by Beery

The US historically takes a number of years to take formal possession of territory it has 'taken'. The facts speak for themselves - the US is the major power determining what goes on in Iraq. The US may not 'own' it, but it controls it, which is, in effect, the same thing.

Yea, just like Germany, Japan and South Korea still have our troops since 1945/50 and the US still hasn't taken those 'possessions'. If the USA is going to leave Iraq then where are all these people about us getting out of Germany, Japan and North Korea??? It is hypocrasy.

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by kholemann

Yea, just like Germany, Japan and South Korea still have our troops since 1945/50 and the US still hasn't taken those 'possessions'. If the USA is going to leave Iraq then where are all these people about us getting out of Germany, Japan and North Korea??? It is hypocrasy.

Uh, but the US gets at best moderate protests from the Germans/Koreans/Japanese (in the case of Koreans, they should probably know that the US presence is effectively the only guarantee of the ROK's existence). And there's no incentive for the US to get out - they have bases, the locals act civil. When's the last time we've heard of IED's killing American's in Germany?

Hypocritical, maybe. But there's really nothing to raise noise over in the case of these 3. It's only a confirmation of American power as an empire, their "little forts" out in the world.