[KHL]Republitard Fuckwit

[Edi]

There's no point even bothering to argue with this idiot; you can show him 20 times how a particular claim is wrong (such as his "regime change has been US policy since Clinton" claim, which is based on a deliberate fudging between "gee, it would be great if Saddam were gone" and "let's invade right now to remove him"), but he'll ignore you and keep repeating the claim as if no one ever dealt with it.

Pure broken-record behaviour (which is actually against the rules, so we'll have to see whether he smartens up before something happens).

I've never disputed that Bush took the regime change policy to the next level. The point I was trying to establish was that we wanted Saddam out of power.

Yes, and nobody disputed you on that particular portion of your argument.

As time went on, the chances of that actually happening by means other than direct intervention became less likely.

Yes, because Saddam had become more and more irrelevant as time went on and his military deteriorated. His WMD programs had been dead for years. Nobody gave a shit about him and his posturing because he was a threat to nobody outside his own borders. And if other countries did want him out of power, well, too bad, it isn't possible to always have what you want. Witness Cuba and Castro. Or the US and Bush where the rest of the world is concerned.

I have explained this before but given the veritable swarm of posts I can understand why it may have been over looked.

What you have been trying to do is explain how the US invasion of Iraq under false pretenses was just and noble simply because the US government mouthed off something about freedom and democracy when its WMD claim fell short. The reality of the situation is that Iraq is currently much worse off collectively than it was under Saddam. It's not been overlooked, your posts have been analyzed in great detail and demolished as bullshit against the standard of factual real life evidence at every turn.

Again, this was more or less background information. The issue I want to debate and have been trying to debate is that Iraqis will be better off long term under this new government then they were/would have been under the old.

Yes, this is what, the sixth or seventh or thriteenth time you're stating this prediction. You say that the Iraqis will be better off in the future. WHERE THE FUCK IS YOUR EVIDENCE? Because all current evidence, even everything that can be extrapolated into the tentatively foreseeable short term future, indicates that they are worse off than under Saddam.

Edi

[The Kernel]

Again, this was more or less background information. The issue I want to debate and have been trying to debate is that Iraqis will be better off long term under this new government then they were/would have been under the old.

Then provide evidence you fucking assclown. E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E, have you heard of it? And no, the Iraqi Constiution does not qualify as evidence. Either bring in hard numbers or shut the fuck up.

[Surlethe]

The issue I want to debate and have been trying to debate is that Iraqis will be better off long term under this new government then they were/would have been under the old.

Then for fuck's sake debate it, instead of whining your thesis every single time somebody demolishes another of your points.

[Stravo]

I just want to drop in and add that Condi Rice recently admitted there may be US troops in Iraq for as long as 10 more years down the road. If you need foreign troops in your country for 10 years just to try and keep it secure - and witness the rash of bombings this month the deadliest since January as proof as to the relativity of secure - how can you possibly argue that its getting any better or will be better in the foreseeable future? Freedom is not some magical aura that cures all your ills and makes you feel better. And frankly how free can you be if you need an occupying foreign army on your soil to keep the government afloat for at least a decade? How free can you be when towns that were secured several months later are back in insurgent hands? (Witness the recent operation where US Forces had to retake towns previously called secured) Keep kidding yourself that its getting better.

Stability and Security are what people want more than anything else and they have none of that right now. You ask your average Iraqi if they want freedom but it will take 10-15 years to secure the country or security and stability right now under Sadaam I wonder just how many people would take the long view?

Essentially you're getting your ass kicked up and down this thread because people can provide numbers as to how bad it is over there and how it doesn't seem to be getting any better and all you can say is "But...they're free." Think about it.

[KHL]

Again, this was more or less background information. The issue I want to debate and have been trying to debate is that Iraqis will be better off long term under this new government then they were/would have been under the old.

Then provide evidence you fucking assclown. E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E, have you heard of it? And no, the Iraqi Constiution does not qualify as evidence. Either bring in hard numbers or shut the fuck up.

Then I can't debate the issue as I cannot provide evidence of events that have not taken place. Obviously any numbers I produce now will look horrible.

If you won't accept the Iraqi constitution as evidence of better times to come, I can't offer anything else at this time. I still stand by contentions that long term things will be better, even if I can't prove it at this time.

[Sea Skimmer]

I just want to drop in and add that Condi Rice recently admitted there may be US troops in Iraq for as long as 10 more years down the road. If you need foreign troops in your country for 10 years just to try and keep it secure - and witness the rash of bombings this month the deadliest since January as proof as to the relativity of secure - how can you possibly argue that its getting any better or will be better in the foreseeable future?

There are still US troops in Germany and Japan 60 years after the fact, I guess the situation in those countries never improved either.

[Plekhanov]

Again, this was more or less background information. The issue I want to debate and have been trying to debate is that Iraqis will be better off long term under this new government then they were/would have been under the old.

Then provide evidence you fucking assclown. E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E, have you heard of it? And no, the Iraqi Constiution does not qualify as evidence. Either bring in hard numbers or shut the fuck up.

Then I can't debate the issue as I cannot provide evidence of events that have not taken place. Obviously any numbers I produce now will look horrible.

If you won't accept the Iraqi constitution as evidence of better times to come, I can't offer anything else at this time. I still stand by contentions that long term things will be better, even if I can't prove it at this time.

Are you seriously still going on about the constitution? Here’s a tip for you turn off Fox News for a few minutes and google “Weimar Germany” and you’ll learn why a constitution on its own means fuck all.

Better still go to the library and read some history because right now its painfully obvious that you don’t know what the fuck your talking about.

[Plekhanov]

I just want to drop in and add that Condi Rice recently admitted there may be US troops in Iraq for as long as 10 more years down the road. If you need foreign troops in your country for 10 years just to try and keep it secure - and witness the rash of bombings this month the deadliest since January as proof as to the relativity of secure - how can you possibly argue that its getting any better or will be better in the foreseeable future?

There are still US troops in Germany and Japan 60 years after the fact, I guess the situation in those countries never improved either.

Way to deliberately misinterpret Stravo’s point, if it weren't for the rather important fact that for the vast majority of that time they were there to scare off the soviets not stop the domestic government from being overthrown you might actually have a point.

[KHL]

I just want to drop in and add that Condi Rice recently admitted there may be US troops in Iraq for as long as 10 more years down the road.

That statement doesn't indicate troop levels or mission. We've been in Germany, and Korea for over 50 years. Simply stating that there may be troops in Iraq for 10 years doesn't mean that we will be propping up the government.

If you need foreign troops in your country for 10 years just to try and keep it secure - and witness the rash of bombings this month the deadliest since January as proof as to the relativity of secure - how can you possibly argue that its getting any better or will be better in the foreseeable future? Freedom is not some magical aura that cures all your ills and makes you feel better. And frankly how free can you be if you need an occupying foreign army on your soil to keep the government afloat for at least a decade? How free can you be when towns that were secured several months later are back in insurgent hands? (Witness the recent operation where US Forces had to retake towns previously called secured) Keep kidding yourself that its getting better.

See above.

As to your question about how I can see it as getting any better in the foreseeable future, the answer is simple: We are essentially building an Iraqi government and Army from scratch. The insurgents have a limited window to succesfully stop the establishment of an Iraqi Democracy. Every day that army is trained, and every vote that is successfully completed that window closes a little bit more.

Stability and Security are what people want more than anything else and they have none of that right now. You ask your average Iraqi if they want freedom but it will take 10-15 years to secure the country or security and stability right now under Sadaam I wonder just how many people would take the long view?

All I have to say to that is the easier choice isn't always the best choice. Freedom isn't free as the saying goes, and if they aren't willing to fight and sacrifice for that 10-15 years (should that be the time it takes), then I don't know what to tell them.

Essentially you're getting your ass kicked up and down this thread because people can provide numbers as to how bad it is over there and how it doesn't seem to be getting any better and all you can say is "But...they're free." Think about it.

I'm not disputing that it is bad now. I've never disputed that. But that doesn't mean the situation is hopeless.

[brianeyci]

Look nobody has anything against optimism. I'm hoping too, that Iraq will turn out to be a peaceful country and become a sports oaisis.

When you tried addressing the point with the constitution though rather than conceding or saying you made a mistake by mentioning the "US policy since Clinton" and then posted the constitution point, it looked like you were trying to prove a theory. It was a pitiful proof, and I don't see how you can ignore the Weimar Germany point, unless P is really right and you have no fucking idea what Weimar Germany is.

Get your head out of your ass man you should concede and apologize for trying to represent your own personal optimistic opinion as a theory.

Brian

[KHL]

Cool I've got a custome title after only 50 some posts... Mindless Republitard.

I guess its not so bad as titles go. Although I'm not even a republican... I'm just an Optimist!

[18-Till-I-Die]

Quick question, i cant really find any definitive information on teh Weimar German constitution...but correct me if i'm wrong, it was to do with the rise of Hitler yes? I recall hearing about it once, on a documentary talking about the Nazis and the Reichstag fire. Am i close? Its been a while and i dont know if we're talking about the same thing.

I ask cause i honestly dont surely know myself and with all this mention of it now i'm curious.

[The Spartan]

Oh for the love of christ....

That statement doesn't indicate troop levels or mission. We've been in Germany, and Korea for over 50 years. Simply stating that there may be troops in Iraq for 10 years doesn't mean that we will be propping up the government.

I take it you missed the point Plekahnov made? We're in Germany and Korea to defend against an EXTERNAL threat goddammit. Not a fucking civil war. And there are some who are itching for exactly that. Including members of the nominally goverment controlled army who are more likely to take orders from one of the fucking imams. Who are just waiting to turn against us. Or the Sunnis.

As to your question about how I can see it as getting any better in the foreseeable future, the answer is simple: We are essentially building an Iraqi government and Army from scratch. The insurgents have a limited window to succesfully stop the establishment of an Iraqi Democracy. Every day that army is trained, and every vote that is successfully completed that window closes a little bit more.

They won't have to stop it. They're doing a damn fine job of establishing a theocracy on their own. Of course they did so democratically so I guess it's okay that they intend to oppress more than 50% of the population... oh wait.

And does it not occur to you that many of the foreign insurgents are not there to stop the Spread of Democracy(TM) but simply to kill Americans? Or that the homegrown ones don't particularly care if it's a democracy or an authoritarian dictatorship that rules over them, they just want us out of their country? Have you not kept up with the news that a rather large majority, pushing 2/3s or so, thinks everything would be better if we left?

All I have to say to that is the easier choice isn't always the best choice. Freedom isn't free as the saying goes, and if they aren't willing to fight and sacrifice for that 10-15 years (should that be the time it takes), then I don't know what to tell them.

Awful easy to say 10000 miles away, safe and sound. Go live in the war zone for 10-15 years and then say that. By the way, if they aren't willing to "fight and sacrifice" for the 10-15 years, then they obviously don't want what we're giving them and we should... I don't know... leave. You can't force freedom or true, functioning democracy on a people that doesn't want it.

I'm not disputing that it is bad now. I've never disputed that. But that doesn't mean the situation is hopeless.

Hopeless? Perhaps not yet. But we are tending towards that, not away.

[The Spartan]

Quick question, i cant really find any definitive information on teh Weimar German constitution....

It was the Constitution imposed upon Germany after WWI. It, in part, crippled Germany (the Depression didn't help) and helped give rise to the Nazis taking control of Germany.

[brianeyci]

Quick question, i cant really find any definitive information on teh Weimar German constitution...but correct me if i'm wrong, it was to do with the rise of Hitler yes? I recall hearing about it once, on a documentary talking about the Nazis and the Reichstag fire. Am i close? Its been a while and i dont know if we're talking about the same thing.

I ask cause i honestly dont surely know myself and with all this mention of it now i'm curious.

IIRC from my Grade 10 history nearly seven years ago, Weimar Germany wasn't called Weimar, it is a term historians use. It's just the name of Germany's government from the end of the Second World War to the rise of Hitler. Hitler was democratically elected.

Just go to History of Germany in Wikipedia, it's all there.

Brian

[brianeyci]

Argh, brain fart, end of teh first world war to the rise of Hitler!

And since I don't feel like wasting a post on a ghetto edit without contributing here's the link.

Brian

[KHL]

Look nobody has anything against optimism. I'm hoping too, that Iraq will turn out to be a peaceful country and become a sports oaisis.

When you tried addressing the point with the constitution though rather than conceding or saying you made a mistake by mentioning the "US policy since Clinton"...

It was U.S. policy since the Clinton administration. You took that statement to mean that I blamed Clinton for the Iraq invasion. Obviously Bush made the ultimate decision to go in, but the point I was making was that its not like everyone thought Saddam was a great guy before the Bush administration.

...and then posted the constitution point, it looked like you were trying to prove a theory. It was a pitiful proof, and I don't see how you can ignore the Weimar Germany point, unless P is really right and you have no fucking idea what Weimar Germany is.

Look, the Weimar constitution had alot more stacked against it than the Iraqi one does. Rather than forcing Iraq to pay reperations as the Germans did, we are putting money into the situation. Further the Iraqs won't have to deal with a world wide depression and hyper inflation that the Germans did.

[brianeyci]

It was U.S. policy since the Clinton administration. You took that statement to mean that I blamed Clinton for the Iraq invasion. Obviously Bush made the ultimate decision to go in, but the point I was making was that its not like everyone thought Saddam was a great guy before the Bush administration.

So what big deal, nobody said that Saddam was a great guy. Ever hear of begging the question? And you're lying or trying to twist the truth, you didn't try to argue for Saddam being a bad guy, you've tried to prove that things under the coalition forces will be better than under Saddam, and you failed. No evidence means you fail. And the constitution is no evidence.

You're such a freaking bonehead. Let's try this another way. You say we shouldn't even mention Bush, look to the future, that sort of thing. Why the fuck did you mention Clinton then hmm?

Look, the Weimar constitution had alot more stacked against it than the Iraqi one does. Rather than forcing Iraq to pay reperations as the Germans did, we are putting money into the situation. Further the Iraqs won't have to deal with a world wide depression and hyper inflation that the Germans did.

You still don't get it. A constitution is not enough to support a theory that Iraq will be "better in the future than under Saddam" given the current conditions in Iraq. It doesn't matter if Iraq doesn't have a world wide depression and hyper inflation, it has much worse, a terrorist insurgency that won't go away and desparate groups who will plunge the nation into civil war if the Americans left right now.

Brian

[Plekhanov]

Cool I've got a custome title after only 50 some posts... Mindless Republitard.

I guess its not so bad as titles go. Although I'm not even a republican... I'm just an Optimist!

Your not an optimist your a fucking idiot with your head so far up your own arse that you think your own 2nd rate rhetoric overrides reality and will remake the world.

...and then posted the constitution point, it looked like you were trying to prove a theory. It was a pitiful proof, and I don't see how you can ignore the Weimar Germany point, unless P is really right and you have no fucking idea what Weimar Germany is.

Look, the Weimar constitution had alot more stacked against it than the Iraqi one does. Rather than forcing Iraq to pay reperations as the Germans did,

Oh well done you finally took a hint and it would seem googled Weimar, no why don’t you follow through and read a book or three (make sure one of them is on basic reasoning) because it’s painfully clear you still don’t know what the hell your talking about.

we are putting money into the situation.

Giving huge amounts of money to US corporations on no bid contracts doesn’t do much to help the Iraqis standard of living (which incase you haven’t been paying attention has gone down since Saddam’s day), nor has the forced privatisation of Iraqi state assets which have surprise surprise largely ended up under US control.

Further the Iraqs won't have to deal with a world wide depression and hyper inflation that the Germans did.

Yeah they only have to deal with having a fiercely divided triballistic population chock full of fundie nutjobs, who have hardly any experience of pluralistic civil society or the rule of law. That’s so much harder than Weimar Germany which had to deal with having just about the most educated population in the world, which had extensive experience of civil society and the rule of law and was one of the top 3 economies of the time

Anyway by trying to nitpick about Weimar you’re missing the point (doesn’t that make a change) which is that a constitution is just a piece of paper which on its own means nothing. Lovely written constitutions not unlike the Iraqi one (save their lack of Islamic fundie clauses) failed to save most post colonial countries from tyrannical governments just as they failed a great many European countries in the 1920s.

This is why as I and most other people active in this thread understand that the Iraqi constitution (which is of course the only bit of evidence you have managed to produce) on its own means and guarantees nothing. Leaving you with precisely NOTHING of worth to back up your position, so considering this why don’t you shut the fuck up, go away read some books and come back here when you actually know something.

[Thanas]

Look, the Weimar constitution had alot more stacked against it than the Iraqi one does. Rather than forcing Iraq to pay reperations as the Germans did, we are putting money into the situation. Further the Iraqs won't have to deal with a world wide depression and hyper inflation that the Germans did.

Let's see:
- powerful forces of former regime at large and railing against the constitution: check
- disbanded military and powerful militias: check
- breakdown of government control: check
- seceding movements: check
- occupying powers: check
- countries economy locked in a downspiral: check

You were saying?

Weimar had arguably less staked against it, since not all of those factors hit at once, the people were actually not divided into three ethnic factions, government order was restored after 1918s uprisings, the people had a common culture, and no one really wanted to split the country.

[Broomstick]

As to your question about how I can see it as getting any better in the foreseeable future, the answer is simple: We are essentially building an Iraqi government and Army from scratch. The insurgents have a limited window to succesfully stop the establishment of an Iraqi Democracy. Every day that army is trained, and every vote that is successfully completed that window closes a little bit more.

That's just completely fucking amazing.

It's true - history does repeat itself!

I remember hearing that given as a justification for 50,000 dead in Viet Nam over 30 years ago.

[Broomstick]

Uh... that's 50,000 on the US side - the Viet Nam death tolls were, of course, considerably higher.

[Broomstick]

Further the Iraqs won't have to deal with a world wide depression and hyper inflation that the Germans did.

Are you sure?

We could still have a "world wide depression". Whether that results in hyperinflation or not, I dunno, but don't discount global economic collapse as a possibility.

[SirNitram]

As to your question about how I can see it as getting any better in the foreseeable future, the answer is simple: We are essentially building an Iraqi government and Army from scratch.

And that is why it's an utter failure: You destroyed the most basic functions of government and let there be a state of anarchy for an extended period, during which time you continued to shoot up sections of it, and gave money to companies and individuals which have stolen or misplaced billions.

Simply put, a competent move would have kept the previous organizations in place and established new individuals in them. But instead, it was run like a retard with high explosives. And you're too dumb to realize this.

The insurgents have a limited window to succesfully stop the establishment of an Iraqi Democracy. Every day that army is trained, and every vote that is successfully completed that window closes a little bit more.

No it doesn't. I defy you to prove this peice of unsupported crap. I know you won't, you're just a lying peice of shit. But I thought I might as well demand it again to see if you can grow a pair.

[wilfulton]

The Iraqi constitution appears to be pandering largely to the Sunnis, who favor more elements of Islamic law, IIRC. While it is nice that they have a constitution, and that their own army is soon going to take up the reigns, and hopefully they'll be able to manage their own affairs soon, there are some things I would like to mention.

There is no window during which the insurgency has to stop the government from forming. If it fails now, it can wait, bide its time, put officials in office, and slowly start to tighten the noose, turning Iraq into another theocracy just like its neighbor, Iran. Some human rights groups have warned that Iraqi women could, ironically, have less freedom under the new government than under Saddam.

In my personal observations patrolling the streets of that country, the people are not going to just jump up and embrace freedom. Like the sheep following the herd, they'll be going after whatever the guy with all the guns says. That is how they've lived in the past, and what they are used to. If Iraq is going to ever have a hope of getting back on its feet, the US will have to hold its hand for quite some time yet. And there's no guarantee that once we let go and let it walk on its own, it won't take a few steps, fall back down, and the whole cycle starts anew.

2,000 dead is a hell of a price to pay. I know three of these men who died. Two were my classmates at Armor school, another, was from my troop, who died in the course of trying to protect what tenuous freedom we'd brought to this country. And I know many more men who bear the wounds of this conflict, some physical scars from where they were lacerated by shrapnel. Others bear the invisible scars commonly known as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Good men have endured 18 months of combat operations in this part of the world, only to be broken by the stress of what they had lived through those months. Broken.