[KHL]Republitard Fuckwit

[KHL]

People die doing their jobs every day. Thats just a sad fact of life.

At this point, regardless of what the initial reasons for invasion were, the cause of establishing a democracy for Iraq is a noble one. We are making progress, and things are moving forward. And I think that secretly, the majority of Iraqis appreciate that. The polls may not show it, but can you really trust them when the people being polled are living under fear of being tortured and beheaded if they are viewed as being a U.S. supporter?

[WyrdNyrd]

"We're installing Demoracy in Iraq! Not a Fundamentalist Theocracy! Secretly, the people are throwing flowers at the feet of American soldiers! Really! La-la-laaaaa! I can't hear you!!!"

Ignore the evidence, eveything is really fine!

[Dalton]

People die doing their jobs every day. Thats just a sad fact of life.

At this point, regardless of what the initial reasons for invasion were, the cause of establishing a democracy for Iraq is a noble one. We are making progress, and things are moving forward. And I think that secretly, the majority of Iraqis appreciate that. The polls may not show it, but can you really trust them when the people being polled are living under fear of being tortured and beheaded if they are viewed as being a U.S. supporter?

Shame that wasn't the original excuse for the war, just an ad-hoc rationalization to make Bushco. seem less scummy than they are.

[KHL]

People die doing their jobs every day. Thats just a sad fact of life.

At this point, regardless of what the initial reasons for invasion were, the cause of establishing a democracy for Iraq is a noble one. We are making progress, and things are moving forward. And I think that secretly, the majority of Iraqis appreciate that. The polls may not show it, but can you really trust them when the people being polled are living under fear of being tortured and beheaded if they are viewed as being a U.S. supporter?

Shame that wasn't the original excuse for the war, just an ad-hoc rationalization to make Bushco. seem less scummy than they are.

True enough it wasn't the given reason we invaded.

However it IS the reason why we have stayed. We could have gone in, taken out Saddam, guranteed there were no WMDs and left the place a mess. The goal of removing Saddam Hussein and the establishment of a democracy in Iraq has been U.S. policy since the Clinton Administration.

[brianeyci]

Fuck, Clinton... why is it that Clinton always gets brought up...

Anyway, since the Administration lied from the very beginning about WMD (and it was a lie no doubt, perhaps a collective lie but a lie), you can't really trust what they want to do. Oil comes to mind. Even if there was no oil, the United States has a responsibility to clean up after their messes, so this "bring democracy to the Middle East" is nothing virtuous but just cleaning up their own mess like a party crasher.

Clinton wouldn't have invaded with insufficient troops. Clinton is on record saying that he opposed the invasion of Iraq as sidelining the real hunt for Osama Bin Laden. If there was a 9/11, maybe we'd see Clinton invade Iraq, probably not, but speculation's a bitch and talk all you want. Clinton didn't invade Iraq, and doesn't live in Bush's fantasy world.

Brian

[18-Till-I-Die]

Fuck, Clinton... why is it that Clinton always gets brought up...

Brian

Its cause he's the devil.

See Clinton is T3H EEEVIL!!1!1 cause he cheated on his wife, worse yet e's a democrat, so whatever Bush does, no matter how costly in terms of lives, is not nearly as bad as one affair.

See? Devil.

[18-Till-I-Die]

Speaking of lives, Gandalf brought up a very good point that bears mentioning again. This isnt the war anymore. The 'war' is over remember, mission accomplished and all that?

This is the occupation. Like the occupation of Germany or Japan after WWII...

Now, put into that context, considering how swimmingly those went, this becomes an even more pathetic waste of blood and treasure. Its all about context.

[Gil Hamilton]

I can't really get behind Hanson on this one, on the casualty numbers for one. Even if we aren't counting contractors (the partial list I found was ~300) and Iraqi forces fighting for us who are dead, which would undoubtably push the casualty numbers a good bit higher, he's comparing apples to oranges.

Like for instance, referencing the Civil War. Can anyone tell me the difference between that and Iraq in battlefield tactics? The former involved going to a battlefield, lining up thousands upon thousands of men in giant rows, facing these rows together, and basically throwing them at each other after a few volleys with assistance from cannon fire, without sophisticate means to treat the wounded to the point that a soldier with a wound stood an excellent chance of dying from infection rather than the bullet. I wonder if such a scenario is going to rack up more casualties than what we see in Iraq?

Keep in mind there are also ~15,000 wounded in Iraq, just from our soldiers, not counting mercenary forces which as stated aren't often reported. Our means to prevent these people from dying is fantastically better than it was in World War 2, let alone the Civil War. That's the thing, alot of battlefield casualties occur after the battle has been fought, because people die of infection or during surgery to save them or what have you. How many casualties would we have if we used Korean War era (let alone Civil War era medicine) medicine when a persons leg got chewed by a mine or took a bullet wound?

Secondly, there aren't nearly as many people fighting in Iraq as there are in the places he mentioned. You've got to compare the ratio of those fighting in the war with casualties to each other and factor in the amount of time fighting the war. It's dishonest to compare casuaties directly to each other. I believe the number of soldiers in Iraq is 150,000 according to Global Security, but this is after some were rotated out and we've only been there for less than 3 years. Compare that to Vietnam where Johnson authorized 429,000 troops to Vietnam by 1966 and combat troops where there from 1965 to 1973. Hanson claims rightly that 29 times as many people died in the whole of Vietnam than have died thus far in Iraq... but according to my calculator there were also three times as many people there and the war lasted five more years in conditions against any enemy that was relatively well equipped compared to the Iraqi Insurgence. That's not an honest comparasion.

[KHL]

Fuck, Clinton... why is it that Clinton always gets brought up...

Anyway, since the Administration lied from the very beginning about WMD (and it was a lie no doubt, perhaps a collective lie but a lie), you can't really trust what they want to do. Oil comes to mind. Even if there was no oil, the United States has a responsibility to clean up after their messes, so this "bring democracy to the Middle East" is nothing virtuous but just cleaning up their own mess like a party crasher.

Clinton was brought up to show that this wasn't merely "Bush deciding Saddam must go". Regime change in Iraq was official U.S. policy.

Your speculation as to the ulterior motives of the "evil Bush regime" is irrelevant. The bottom line is we are going to establish a Democracy there and it will be to the benefit of the Iraqi people.

Clinton wouldn't have invaded with insufficient troops. Clinton is on record saying that he opposed the invasion of Iraq as sidelining the real hunt for Osama Bin Laden. If there was a 9/11, maybe we'd see Clinton invade Iraq, probably not, but speculation's a bitch and talk all you want. Clinton didn't invade Iraq, and doesn't live in Bush's fantasy world.

Brian

I'm not going to debate what Clinton would/wouldn't do. His statements are akin to armchair quarterbacking and are not reliable to gauge how he would have handled this.

[Plekhanov]

People die doing their jobs every day. Thats just a sad fact of life.

At this point, regardless of what the initial reasons for invasion were, the cause of establishing a democracy for Iraq is a noble one. We are making progress, and things are moving forward. And I think that secretly, the majority of Iraqis appreciate that. The polls may not show it, but can you really trust them when the people being polled are living under fear of being tortured and beheaded if they are viewed as being a U.S. supporter?

And I think that secretly, the majority of the girls I asked out who turned me down really meant to say yes. Of course they did actually say no and gave every sign of being happy with that decision but can you really trust reality when you don’t like it?

I don’t think you can, take my advice whenever reality diverges from how things should be don’t worry simply be happy that secretly the world does agree with you even if all the evidence it to the contrary.

[Wyrm]

However it IS the reason why we have stayed. We could have gone in, taken out Saddam, guranteed there were no WMDs and left the place a mess. The goal of removing Saddam Hussein and the establishment of a democracy in Iraq has been U.S. policy since the Clinton Administration.

Well, Bush Sr. had the perfect opportunity to oust that fuck when there was an uprising in Iraq right after the first Gulf War. But what did George Herbert Walker Bush do? Wash his hands of it, and the result was the uprising was slaughtered and a decade more of Saddam.

Plenty of blame to go around, folks.

[brianeyci]

Clinton was brought up to show that this wasn't merely "Bush deciding Saddam must go". Regime change in Iraq was official U.S. policy.

It's the United States cleaning up its own mess. You're saying it as if its something to be proud of, when it's something to be ashamed of because we caused the fucking mess in the first place by going in! It wasn't Clinton who chose to go in, it was Bush, regardless of your "official U.S. policy" bullshit. The blame lies solely in Bush's domain. Bringing up Clinton to say "well it's partly Clinton's fault" is absolutely fucking retarded. Of course it was Bush's decision, he could have called off the invasion, or does the title "Commander-in-Chief" not mean anything, he has the ultimate responsibility.

Your speculation as to the ulterior motives of the "evil Bush regime" is irrelevant. The bottom line is we are going to establish a Democracy there and it will be to the benefit of the Iraqi people.

So, the Bush administration lies about WMD, and we shouldn't question them when they say they're there to establish a democracy? We should just listen to them? Where is this "great benefit" when the average Iraqi citizen according to polls thinks that the killing of American soldiers is justified?

I'm not going to debate what Clinton would/wouldn't do. His statements are akin to armchair quarterbacking and are not reliable to gauge how he would have handled this.

But you're forgetting the fact that Clinton was President. Sure there wasn't a 9/11, but did he invade Iraq after they disobeyed UN Weapons Inspectors? No, he fired off a bunch of cruise missiles, but he didn't go on an elaborate charade to deceive the American people and the world about a threat to American security. Grow a brain.

Brian

[FSTargetDrone]

In regard to the death count and injuries, it's my understanding that unless a member of the military actually dies during the course of a combat action, he or she is not counted as an actual combat death. Is this correct? If so, then anyone who is injured during a comabt mission, survives long enough to be evacuated out of the country (to Germany, the US, wherever) but then dies outside of the country where the war is presently ocurring does not make the "killed in Iraq" list, presumably.

However, for example, Sgt. Smith receives a serious wound during a firefight, is evactuated, and survives.

2 weeks later, he dies from complications stemming from the seriousness of his wound, infection, pneumonia, whatever.

Is he or is he not listed as a combat death?

[SirNitram]

Fuck, Clinton... why is it that Clinton always gets brought up...

Anyway, since the Administration lied from the very beginning about WMD (and it was a lie no doubt, perhaps a collective lie but a lie), you can't really trust what they want to do. Oil comes to mind. Even if there was no oil, the United States has a responsibility to clean up after their messes, so this "bring democracy to the Middle East" is nothing virtuous but just cleaning up their own mess like a party crasher.

Clinton was brought up to show that this wasn't merely "Bush deciding Saddam must go". Regime change in Iraq was official U.S. policy.

Regime change by force was not. And of course, do you know what this is? A Red Herring. Because Clinton did it does not make it sensible or smart.

Dumb-ass.

Your speculation as to the ulterior motives of the "evil Bush regime" is irrelevant. The bottom line is we are going to establish a Democracy there and it will be to the benefit of the Iraqi people.

Really? Have you read the constitution they passed? It's theocratic, and all signs point to Iraq simply splitting apart.

Clinton wouldn't have invaded with insufficient troops. Clinton is on record saying that he opposed the invasion of Iraq as sidelining the real hunt for Osama Bin Laden. If there was a 9/11, maybe we'd see Clinton invade Iraq, probably not, but speculation's a bitch and talk all you want. Clinton didn't invade Iraq, and doesn't live in Bush's fantasy world.

Brian

I'm not going to debate what Clinton would/wouldn't do. His statements are akin to armchair quarterbacking and are not reliable to gauge how he would have handled this.

What a flip-flopper you apologists are. First Clinton's actions are 'US Policy' but when they go against you? 'Armchair quarterbacking'.

Here's a hint, kid: 'Stay The Course' isn't working for Bush, and it won't work for you.

[KHL]

Fuck, Clinton... why is it that Clinton always gets brought up...

Anyway, since the Administration lied from the very beginning about WMD (and it was a lie no doubt, perhaps a collective lie but a lie), you can't really trust what they want to do. Oil comes to mind. Even if there was no oil, the United States has a responsibility to clean up after their messes, so this "bring democracy to the Middle East" is nothing virtuous but just cleaning up their own mess like a party crasher.

Clinton was brought up to show that this wasn't merely "Bush deciding Saddam must go". Regime change in Iraq was official U.S. policy.

Regime change by force was not. And of course, do you know what this is? A Red Herring. Because Clinton did it does not make it sensible or smart.

Dumb-ass.

Get your facts straight. The use of military assistance WAS prescribed in the act. Did Bush ratchet it up a bit? Sure he did, but that doesn't change the fact that getting Saddam out of power was a goal of the U.S.

I was merely trying to give some background on this issue, and to point out that the idea of removing Saddam wasn't "all Bush's idea". For that matter, it wasn't all Clinton's idea either. This was an act drafted by Congress and signed by the President. Whether it was "sensible" or "smart" will be left up to historians to decide years down the road.

Really? Have you read the constitution they passed? It's theocratic, and all signs point to Iraq simply splitting apart.

Yes I've read the constitution. Does it have theocractic parts within it? Yes. Does it also afford the people far more protections than under Saddam? Hell yes it does.

What a flip-flopper you apologists are. First Clinton's actions are 'US Policy' but when they go against you? 'Armchair quarterbacking'.

Here's a hint, kid: 'Stay The Course' isn't working for Bush, and it won't work for you.

Clintons actions WHILE PRESIDENT are "U.S. policy". His actions as a former president doing speaking gigs for money is "Armchair quarterbacking". And again, the Iraqi Liberation Act wasn't just something Clinton pulled out of his ass. It was drafted and passed by the U.S. Congress before it ever got to his desk.

[SirNitram]

Clinton was brought up to show that this wasn't merely "Bush deciding Saddam must go". Regime change in Iraq was official U.S. policy.

Regime change by force was not. And of course, do you know what this is? A Red Herring. Because Clinton did it does not make it sensible or smart.

Dumb-ass.

Get your facts straight. The use of military assistance WAS prescribed in the act. Did Bush ratchet it up a bit? Sure he did, but that doesn't change the fact that getting Saddam out of power was a goal of the U.S.

Nice job not actually reading. Let me guess: Like most apologists you're not actually literate. As I said: Regime change by force was rejected even by Bush Sr.

I was merely trying to give some background on this issue, and to point out that the idea of removing Saddam wasn't "all Bush's idea". For that matter, it wasn't all Clinton's idea either. This was an act drafted by Congress and signed by the President. Whether it was "sensible" or "smart" will be left up to historians to decide years down the road.

No, it is up to the people here and now to look at what's happened. And it's a tremendous failure. You're just an apologist fucktard who refuses to see the evidence of his own eyes.

Your speculation as to the ulterior motives of the "evil Bush regime" is irrelevant. The bottom line is we are going to establish a Democracy there and it will be to the benefit of the Iraqi people.

Really? Have you read the constitution they passed? It's theocratic, and all signs point to Iraq simply splitting apart.

Yes I've read the constitution. Does it have theocractic parts within it? Yes. Does it also afford the people far more protections than under Saddam? Hell yes it does.

And does any of this matter when Sharia law oppresses half the population? Nope. Does this matter when it splits in civil war? Nope. Does it make people safer? No.

I'm not going to debate what Clinton would/wouldn't do. His statements are akin to armchair quarterbacking and are not reliable to gauge how he would have handled this.

What a flip-flopper you apologists are. First Clinton's actions are 'US Policy' but when they go against you? 'Armchair quarterbacking'.

Here's a hint, kid: 'Stay The Course' isn't working for Bush, and it won't work for you.

Clintons actions WHILE PRESIDENT are "U.S. policy". His actions as a former president doing speaking gigs for money is "Armchair quarterbacking". And again, the Iraqi Liberation Act wasn't just something Clinton pulled out of his ass. It was drafted and passed by the U.S. Congress before it ever got to his desk.

And it still didn't call for invasion as everyone saw what it would make: This shitstorm which makes life worse for hte Iraqis.

Oh, wait. You're just too dumb to see that.

[KHL]

It's the United States cleaning up its own mess. You're saying it as if its something to be proud of, when it's something to be ashamed of because we caused the fucking mess in the first place by going in! It wasn't Clinton who chose to go in, it was Bush, regardless of your "official U.S. policy" bullshit. The blame lies solely in Bush's domain. Bringing up Clinton to say "well it's partly Clinton's fault" is absolutely fucking retarded. Of course it was Bush's decision, he could have called off the invasion, or does the title "Commander-in-Chief" not mean anything, he has the ultimate responsibility.

You are a fucking idiot and I won't allow you to continue on straw manning my arguments into something they aren't. This isn't about blamming Clinton it is about illustrating the fact that Regime change in Iraq as U.S. policy pre-dated the Bush administration. Is Bush responsible for actually following through on the policy? Yes he is.

Your speculation as to the ulterior motives of the "evil Bush regime" is irrelevant. The bottom line is we are going to establish a Democracy there and it will be to the benefit of the Iraqi people.

So, the Bush administration lies about WMD, and we shouldn't question them when they say they're there to establish a democracy? We should just listen to them? Where is this "great benefit" when the average Iraqi citizen according to polls thinks that the killing of American soldiers is justified?

Building a democracy from scratch isn't easy and is rarely bloodless. The Benefits will be enjoyed to their fullest by future generations, but you have to start somewhere. Besides, just about anything we estbalish there will be better than Saddam's regime.

I'm not going to debate what Clinton would/wouldn't do. His statements are akin to armchair quarterbacking and are not reliable to gauge how he would have handled this.

But you're forgetting the fact that Clinton was President. Sure there wasn't a 9/11, but did he invade Iraq after they disobeyed UN Weapons Inspectors? No, he fired off a bunch of cruise missiles, but he didn't go on an elaborate charade to deceive the American people and the world about a threat to American security. Grow a brain.

Brian

The key word there being was. His statements now ARE armchair quarterbacking. Clinton used the military for his own ends, not to the extent that Bush has, but Clinton was no peacenik.

Regardless of the reasons we went in, we are there now working to establish a democracy. And to that end, establishing Democracy in Iraq is a noble cause.

[Broomstick]

Really? Have you read the constitution they passed? It's theocratic, and all signs point to Iraq simply splitting apart.

I'm beginning to question this seeming horror people have of Iraq "splitting apart".

If the choice is one nation in constant turmoil, or three smaller but stable nations the latter might well be the best alternative in the long run. The current map of the middle east is an outgrowth of 19th century colonialism and meddling from outside and the boundaries frequently do not follow natural lines of allegience such as ethnicity, religion, language, tribe, or other affiliations that dictated the maps of Europe and Asia where nations are much more stable in outline.

[KHL]

Regime change by force was not. And of course, do you know what this is? A Red Herring. Because Clinton did it does not make it sensible or smart.

Dumb-ass.

Get your facts straight. The use of military assistance WAS prescribed in the act. Did Bush ratchet it up a bit? Sure he did, but that doesn't change the fact that getting Saddam out of power was a goal of the U.S.

Nice job not actually reading. Let me guess: Like most apologists you're not actually literate. As I said: Regime change by force was rejected even by Bush Sr.

Now you want to drag poor Bush Sr. into this?

Bottom line: The U.S. wanted Saddam out of power. Period.

I was merely trying to give some background on this issue, and to point out that the idea of removing Saddam wasn't "all Bush's idea". For that matter, it wasn't all Clinton's idea either. This was an act drafted by Congress and signed by the President. Whether it was "sensible" or "smart" will be left up to historians to decide years down the road.

No, it is up to the people here and now to look at what's happened. And it's a tremendous failure. You're just an apologist fucktard who refuses to see the evidence of his own eyes.

It is a work in progress. Its far too soon to declare it a victory or a defeat.

I'm not an apologist, I merely have an open mind to the possibilities presented. I don't go "Bush is evil THEREFORE the establishment of Democracy by the U.S. in Iraq must also be evil".

And does any of this matter when Sharia law oppresses half the population? Nope. Does this matter when it splits in civil war? Nope. Does it make people safer? No.

You have to start somewhere. In the original draft of the U.S. constitution, we had specific provisions for slavery, no rights for women to vote, etc. I think you get my point

You can't deny that this constitution WILL afford the common people more protections than they had under Saddam's rule.

If this results in an all out civil war, then feel free to come back and say "I told you so".

And it still didn't call for invasion as everyone saw what it would make: This shitstorm which makes life worse for hte Iraqis.

Oh, wait. You're just too dumb to see that.

The fact is that we're there now and the continuation of the cause of establishing an Iraqi Democracy is a noble one. "Pulling out" simply is not an option.

Its temporary hardship, for a potentially long term and very benficial gain.

Oh wait, you're just too short sighted to see that.

[18-Till-I-Die]

How do you know they will establish a democracy. They could very well have a massive civil war just after we leave, and some new dictator comes to power. Or worse, a thocracy.

You talk about these 'benefits' as if they are assured. They are not, and in fact are looking quite tenuous considering.

[SirNitram]

Nice job not actually reading. Let me guess: Like most apologists you're not actually literate. As I said: Regime change by force was rejected even by Bush Sr.

Now you want to drag poor Bush Sr. into this?

I am showing that across both party lines, it was seen as overwhelmingly stupid to invade Iraq. Guess what? Dubya proved them all right.

Bottom line: The U.S. wanted Saddam out of power. Period.

Yep, totally illiterate. Once more, troll: Regime change by force was rejected. IT was rejected for a reason. Try reading and comprehending.

No, it is up to the people here and now to look at what's happened. And it's a tremendous failure. You're just an apologist fucktard who refuses to see the evidence of his own eyes.

It is a work in progress. Its far too soon to declare it a victory or a defeat.

Only an imbecile is unable to quantify the effects of something in progress. But you're proving yourself and imbecile readily.

I'm not an apologist, I merely have an open mind to the possibilities presented. I don't go "Bush is evil THEREFORE the establishment of Democracy by the U.S. in Iraq must also be evil".

You have a completely closed mind, as shown by your violent and forceful response to the simple fact that regime change by force was rejected out of hand. You're a lying peice of shit apologist.

And does any of this matter when Sharia law oppresses half the population? Nope. Does this matter when it splits in civil war? Nope. Does it make people safer? No.

You have to start somewhere. In the original draft of the U.S. constitution, we had specific provisions for slavery, no rights for women to vote, etc. I think you get my point

That we're setting back Iraq further than when it was a British colony? Yes. It is undoing decades of work.

You can't deny that this constitution WILL afford the common people more protections than they had under Saddam's rule.

Actually, I can. It has acknowledgement of Islam as a source of laws, therefore 50% of the populace is automatically less protected than under Saddam's secular, but extremely corrupt, rule.

If this results in an all out civil war, then feel free to come back and say "I told you so".

So you can be a lying, peice of shit apologist all over again, screeching we can't judge it yet? No thanks, I'll do it now.

And it still didn't call for invasion as everyone saw what it would make: This shitstorm which makes life worse for hte Iraqis.

Oh, wait. You're just too dumb to see that.

The fact is that we're there now and the continuation of the cause of establishing an Iraqi Democracy is a noble one. "Pulling out" simply is not an option.

Invading a country on nothing but lies is not noble. Demolishing the infrastructure of government so it'll collapse into anarchy and violence while you lose billions to corruption is not noble. Pulling out remains an option forwarded by Republicans.

You are, simply put, lying.

Its temporary hardship, for a potentially long term and very benficial gain.

No, it's a very permenant hardship for the thousands killed, maimed, and otherwise having their lives destoryed. But you don't care.

Oh wait, you're just too short sighted to see that.

More lies from Bush's latest SDNet knob-polisher.

[KHL]

Apparently you think things were better under Saddam. What "freedoms" pray tell did the populace have under this magnificant benefactor that they won't have under the new constitution?

Or perhaps you feel that we should impose a completely Western style democracy because the one the Iraqi's are forming doesn't fit with your view of how it should be.

I'm not going to argue with you any further. You needlessly denigrate into insults. You engage in poisoning the well tactics by equating everything I say with Bush as an effort to discredit me. And I've got no time for it.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

[SirNitram]

Apparently you think things were better under Saddam.

Better than having cities without water for months, with three fourths of the buildings smashed? Yep. Better than having Humvees with 'shoot to kill' orders if you approach going down the street? Yep. What evidence do you offer that the current shitstorm is better?

What "freedoms" pray tell did the populace have under this magnificant benefactor that they won't have under the new constitution?

Freedom from Sharia law, for a start.

Or perhaps you feel that we should impose a completely Western style democracy because the one the Iraqi's are forming doesn't fit with your view of how it should be.

Heh. You've funny, shithead. The US is imposing a Western style democracy on Iraq. That's the problem, you ignorant slime-pile. Have you listened to those you worship blindly with your mouth open and eyes shut?

I'm not going to argue with you any further. You needlessly denigrate into insults. You engage in poisoning the well tactics by equating everything I say with Bush as an effort to discredit me. And I've got no time for it.

Style over substance fallacy, shithead. Now run the fuck away like the coward you are.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

No, I'm going to call you an ignorant shithead because that's how you're acting. If you can't make a genuine improvement on a country, don't invade it to make things better.

[KHL]

How do you know they will establish a democracy. They could very well have a massive civil war just after we leave, and some new dictator comes to power. Or worse, a thocracy.

You talk about these 'benefits' as if they are assured. They are not, and in fact are looking quite tenuous considering.

How do you know a meteor won't rocket out of the sky and kill you while you sleep at night?

Obviously if either of the two scenarios you just named happens, then this endeavor WOULD have been a collosal failure. To declare it such at this point is extremely premature.

[Broomstick]

Apparently you think things were better under Saddam. What "freedoms" pray tell did the populace have under this magnificant benefactor that they won't have under the new constitution?

Under Saddam one did not need to be a male Muslim of the "proper" sect in order to enjoy full citizenship (such as "full citizenship" was under Saddam...) If Iraq turns to Sharia Law, then 50% of the populace will be made into second class citizens at best, and anyone not Muslim, or not Muslim enough, will face the same fate.

Better or worse...? Depends on who you are, really.

I'm not going to argue with you any further. You needlessly denigrate into insults.

Then you picked the wrong board to start an argument on, fucknugget. Insults - even gratuitous ones - are not only permitted here, they're more or less encouraged if they're witty or particularly original.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

Good luck with that, here - let me know how it works out.

Stand your ground and quit whining, or leave the thread. I've more respect for someone who is willing to defend their beliefs even if I don't agree with them than a whiner who isn't willing to tussle a bit.