Can we kill Al-Sadr now? Please?

[Sarevok]

Regarding the whole JDAM thing; blowing up a Mosque with a cleric in it would generally be seen as a Bad Thing (TM). Get instant martyrs (i.e. all those guys protecting him) and religious sacrilege, two for one!

Indeed. Attacking a mosque no matter whatever the reason would be seen as a very bad thing by the Iraqis and muslim world. It would be better to kill Al-Sadr in some other place than a mosque.

[Rogue 9]

Regarding the whole JDAM thing; blowing up a Mosque with a cleric in it would generally be seen as a Bad Thing (TM). Get instant martyrs (i.e. all those guys protecting him) and religious sacrilege, two for one!

Indeed. Attacking a mosque no matter whatever the reason would be seen as a very bad thing by the Iraqis and muslim world. It would be better to kill Al-Sadr in some other place than a mosque.

And with a sniper rifle rather than a JDAM. Unfortunately, we can't get in there without pissing off the remaining moderate clerics who aren't currently screaming for our heads. Unless, of course, the military could field a special forces team composed of Muslims who would be willing to do it...

[Plekhanov]

But yeah, that is the idea. We're not looking for colonies here, and if we started to turn Iraq into one instead of pulling out, Bush would be impeached so fast you'd wonder why Cheney's President twelve hours later.

Are you sure about this? I’ve repeatedly heard that the US has plans for up to 4 major bases in Iraq.

The United States has militarily smashed other countries before and given 'em back. Germany, Japan, and Italy are prominent examples,

Your examples attacked/declared war upon the US, Iraq was a war of choice indicating different US objectives.

and with the possible exception of Japan, an occupation of any of them would not have had the same massive problems as a permanent garrisoning of Iraq would now.

You still have large military bases in Japan and Germany not sure about Italy.

The world was also in a very different situation post WWII which made formal colonisation much more difficult than today and in some ways less desirable. Though the CIA did for example interfere in Italian elections to stop Communists from winning them. However more recent US foreign policy say for example with installing the Shah’s regime in Iran or US involvement in Vietnam would suggest a definite willingness to involve itself in other nations domestic politics.

One of the most interesting lines of argument upon this subject I’ve heard is that back 1945 the US was economically powerful enough to pull off forms of informal colonisation, something it is no longer able to do try this link (warning 30 min Real Audio radio program, but well worth the listen) for a summary of this view with built in rebuttal

Germany and Italy are of course also European countries full of white Europeans and as such colonising them isn’t allowed.

[Rogue 9]

Those major bases in Germany are a Cold War leftover, to protect against the Warsaw Pact. Bureaucratic inertia's amazing, ain't it? The ones in Japan are there because the Tokyo Bay Treaty gives the United States responsibility for Japan's defense since they're not allowed a standing professional military.

And having bases =/= full military occupation, martial law, and a say in government. Do we automatically control Germany's government just because the 1st Armored is based in Germany? (At least, I think its the 1st...) No. We don't even have a say. If they ordered us to get our bases out of the country now, we'd have to comply.

And Germany and Italy are countries full of white Europeans (like that honestly makes a gigantic difference), but Japan is not and we don't have controlling interest there, do we? (If we did, you could be sure the trade deficit would be a lot smaller.)

[Plekhanov]

Those major bases in Germany are a Cold War leftover, to protect against the Warsaw Pact. Bureaucratic inertia's amazing, ain't it? The ones in Japan are there because the Tokyo Bay Treaty gives the United States responsibility for Japan's defense since they're not allowed a standing professional military.

They are remnants now but initially they also a role in controlling the natives as well as ward off Stalin. The Japanese armed forces may not officially exist but the defence force or whatever its called is still one of the largest and best equipped military forces in the world.

And having bases =/= full military occupation, martial law, and a say in government. Do we automatically control Germany's government just because the 1st Armored is based in Germany? (At least, I think its the 1st...) No. We don't even have a say. If they ordered us to get our bases out of the country now, we'd have to comply.

Bear in mind that I was largely talking about informal empire, until very recently the US could almost be argued to have exerted hegemonic power over Germany in terms of foreign policy, Iraq was one of the 1st major disputes. Anyway America’s behaviour in Europe is the exception what it got up to in South America, Africa, Asia, the Middle East is the rule. Are you seriously arguing that US military bases in Saudi, the Philippines and Vietnam for example never gave you any influence over the domestic governments and that power was never exercised?

And Germany and Italy are countries full of white Europeans (like that honestly makes a gigantic difference),

That was a tongue in cheek comment, though I do seriously think it makes a significant difference to colonial attitudes, its much harder to dehumanise people who look just like you, share a similar culture and are only separated from much of the American population by a few generations. Many people contributing to this board seem to have already thoroughly dehumanised the Iraqis.

but Japan is not and we don't have controlling interest there, do we? (If we did, you could be sure the trade deficit would be a lot smaller.)

Like most things in this world Imperialism isn’t all or nothing, just because Japan and Germany weren’t totally under your thumb for the 50 or so years following WWII that doesn’t mean that you had no control at all.

Do you deny that the current Saudi Regime is propped up by the US and is subject to a great deal of influence as are for example (staying in the Islamic world) the current Egyptian and Pakistani regimes. They don’t always do everything they are told, but they do most of the important things and on some issues definitely listen more to the Whitehouse than their own populations.

Why should we not expect a similar situation to be the intended end result of the invasion of Iraq?