Monochromaticism.

[weemadando]

There is the possibility that they will choose to elect a taliban-esque government. They might be the most secular population in the Middle East but that isn't saying much. The region is riddled with Muslim fundamentalists. And that'll be a major problem if they get elected.

And America has how many redneck Southern Baptist sons of bitches in power who believe in creationism?

Cut the shit. That's a red herring and you know it.

How so? Its religious fundamentalism and freedom of speech. Two great institutions of the American government.

So what if fundamentalists get elected, I thought you were all for the will of the people being executed?

Those Muslims wackos would kill you as readly as any American and never give a damn that you're anti-war. It those guys are elected (and there's a chance they will) then we have a major problem. I have no idea how it would or should be dealt with. That's a problem, I'm willing to bet you don't have a solution to.

How about not treating them like sub-human idiots. How about having a little respect for their religion? How about not endorsing the destruction of their culture, cities and peoples?

Maybe then they might have some respect for you too.

You strike me the same as most of the anti-war crowd. Against just about everything but no solution to the problems.

How easy it is to criticise me when you are mindlessly following what you are told.

[Shinova]

If you occupy a nation and refuse to let them be lead by who the majority want to be lead by then it's hardly a liberation is it?

The leader they choose could turn out to be another Saddam, and it'd be like old Iraq all over again, except worse due to damage by the war.

[weemadando]

And you still haven't answered my question as to what you would have done about the Iraq situation in the first place.

Well gee whiz I suppose I must just be hiding from your sabre-wit and infallible political position.

[Shinova]

How so? Its religious fundamentalism and freedom of speech. Two great institutions of the American government.

So what if fundamentalists get elected, I thought you were all for the will of the people being executed?

If fundies got elected, they'd do their best to take off, or at least minimalize the freedom of religion in the Bill of Rights. And along the way, they may make an impact on free speech as well.

Fundies shouldn't be elected cause they're a threat to the civil liberties this country was built on.

[Stormbringer]

A & C might have worked if the UN Security Council Members were actually willing to make a good faith reform of the situation. A dubious assumption given Russian and French ties to Iraq. Pie in the sky hopes are all well and good but it's not the way to handle foriegn policy.

I agree Bush could have and should have handled things better. But the fact is given the parties involved on both sides war was the inevitable result.

You're mileage may vary.

[weemadando]

A & C might have worked if the UN Security Council Members were actually willing to make a good faith reform of the situation. A dubious assumption given Russian and French ties to Iraq. Pie in the sky hopes are all well and good but it's not the way to handle foriegn policy.

I agree Bush could have and should have handled things better. But the fact is given the parties involved on both sides war was the inevitable result.

You're mileage may vary.

I believe that had Bush not been agitating for war the whole time and have been serious about REFORM in Iraq then he would have gotten the support of the French and Russians.

[Enforcer Talen]

course, would hussein been willing for reform?

[Queeb Salaron]

Amen to that...and pull out of S. Korea, Japan, and Europe while we're at it.

why?

Because they're all rich enough to defend themselves.

More than that: Who died and appointed Bush as the policeman of the globe? I know the US has had dealings in Korea since the 50's and in Japan since the 40's (and in Europe since forever), but our political interests in these places have waned to a point where any conflict in those areas is a matter of GLOBAL concern, not NATIONAL concern. On the issue of S. Korea, Powell came out and said that nuclear armorment of N. Korea was a threat to American troops in S. Korea. Simple fix: MOVE THEM THE FUCK OUT! Let the UN deal with the disarmorment of North Korea. (Yes, I said that about Iraq, too. Yes, I believe inspections would have worked if they were given time and the proper task force with which to accomplish such a feat.)

As for Japan, we've been trying to rebuild Japan since the 40's. And we've done so. Tokyo is a bustling metropolis. Japan is a major player in global economy. Japan is existing now better than it ever has in its existence. Maybe America had a hand in that with its support after WWII. Regardless, it's time for us to leave. Japan is already becoming Americanized to the point where Frank Sinatra's "Fly Me To The Moon" is played during the closing credits of Evangelion. Time to let identity flow.

I don't have so much of a problem with Europe... Or at least I wouldn't if they didn't fucking hate Americans. What? We're only fat, slobbering, money-grubbing, materialistic, sensationalist, oil-hogging bastards... And hey! We gave you EuroDisney! And Michael Jackson! Be grateful, dammit!

But alas... I digress. Americans need to stay in America. We do enough damage from across the oceans. We don't need to be up-close and personal with other countries and spawn chaos.

[Spyder]

What you need to do is set up choices. Educate the Iraqis that they no longer need to live in fear of voting for the wrong party. Prop up a couple of people from the populace that want to get into Iraqi politics, and eliminate anyone that threatens to kill people if they don't vote for them. Then you have an elected government without being a satellite state.

You could even keep a couple of people there to ensure that the new government's powers aren't abused.

That way, if the people vote for the wrong party they can easily hold another election, and if that party still gets in then you'll just have to admit that they're going to vote for who they want, and forcing them to do otherwise is taking away their freedom.

[Enforcer Talen]

Bush became the policeman of the globe when he was elected president of the superpower. Having the power to affect the planet grants the responsibility of using it for the betterment of those influenced by you.

[Enforcer Talen]

What you need to do is set up choices. Educate the Iraqis that they no longer need to live in fear of voting for the wrong party. Prop up a couple of people from the populace that want to get into Iraqi politics, and eliminate anyone that threatens to kill people if they don't vote for them. Then you have an elected government without being a satellite state.

You could even keep a couple of people there to ensure that the new government's powers aren't abused.

That way, if the people vote for the wrong party they can easily hold another election, and if that party still gets in then you'll just have to admit that they're going to vote for who they want, and forcing them to do otherwise is taking away their freedom.

define wrong party, and what if one of the military men of the old regime takes control? its happened enough when there's a breaking of the old order.

[Stormbringer]

How so? Its religious fundamentalism and freedom of speech. Two great institutions of the American government.

So what if fundamentalists get elected, I thought you were all for the will of the people being executed?

I happen to despise the religious fundamentalism that's crept into a America and it's government.

The problem if the fundamentalists is do we hand Iraq to a bunch wackos who'll be more no better (and possibly worse) than Saddam Hussien? I don't think that would be wise in the long term for the US or Iraq. But then again neither will refusing to. All we can do is hope the Iraqi voter is smarter than that.

How about not treating them like sub-human idiots. How about having a little respect for their religion? How about not endorsing the destruction of their culture, cities and peoples?

Maybe then they might have some respect for you too.

And by respect for their religion you mean let people like the Taliban oppress everyone that doesn't toe the line of their doctrine? Respect a culture that keeps woman in conditions no better than slavery? Respect that kind of culture? Never.

Given Bin Laden still harps about the Crusades I'm guessing he's not going to be peaceful no matter what.

How easy it is to criticise me when you are mindlessly following what you are told.

As a opposed to you who mindlessly swallows the liberal line?

And you still haven't answered my question as to what you would have done about the Iraq situation in the first place.

Well gee whiz I suppose I must just be hiding from your sabre-wit and infallible political position.

Hell if I know why you avoided my question the first time I asked.

[weemadando]

course, would hussein been willing for reform?

Too many people make the mistake of thinking that Hussein is a stupid man who somehow fell into power.

He would reform, but it would take a concerted effort with the full support of the UN to do so.

Like anyone, he is interested in his own survival. And his survival is tied to his political survival.

[Joe]

More than that: Who died and appointed Bush as the policeman of the globe? I know the US has had dealings in Korea since the 50's and in Japan since the 40's (and in Europe since forever), but our political interests in these places have waned to a point where any conflict in those areas is a matter of GLOBAL concern, not NATIONAL concern. On the issue of S. Korea, Powell came out and said that nuclear armorment of N. Korea was a threat to American troops in S. Korea. Simple fix: MOVE THEM THE FUCK OUT! Let the UN deal with the disarmorment of North Korea. (Yes, I said that about Iraq, too. Yes, I believe inspections would have worked if they were given time and the proper task force with which to accomplish such a feat.)

We are going to be reducing our military presence in S. Korea, according to Rumsfeld; we will no longer be their border patsy. Much to their dismay.

[Enforcer Talen]

I dont think him stupid, just evil. 1, how would you get the u.n. to agree on anything, 2, why would reforms keep him alive any longer?

[Stormbringer]

I believe that had Bush not been agitating for war the whole time and have been serious about REFORM in Iraq then he would have gotten the support of the French and Russians.

Not likely. They've been doing fine slipping embargoed materials and technology to Iraq and have opposed serious reform from the beginning. They had a lot to do with leaving Saddam Hussien in place the first time around.

And France has supported Saddam more than the US and from damn near the beginning of his regime. Russia since they were the Soviet Union. I doubt they would be willing to part with a valued customer. Ah, the hypocrisy of nations.

[Joe]

How about having a little respect for their religion?

At the risk of sounding extreme, fundementalist Islam is not interested in our respect, it is interested in our submission. Yours, too.

[Stormbringer]

course, would hussein been willing for reform?

Too many people make the mistake of thinking that Hussein is a stupid man who somehow fell into power.

He would reform, but it would take a concerted effort with the full support of the UN to do so.

Like anyone, he is interested in his own survival. And his survival is tied to his political survival.

Which would never survive reforms. He knows he's held onto his position the same way Stalin did, constant repression. If he started making reforms it would lead to his eventual downfall. Given his previous behaviour even exile would likely have wound up with him killed.

[Axis Kast]

The problem is that by comparison with their neighbors, Iraqis are already educated. Hell, prior to the Iran-Iraq War, Hussein was instituting sweeping reforms the likes of which we’d be lucky to see in Iraq sometime within the next five years. Especially under a democratic government. Reconstruction will be extremely difficult. Not that I don’t think we’ve got to make a spirited attempt. But as for myself, I really don’t see how we can approach the situation from a very good angle. The best solution at this point seems to be a compromise. The lesser of several evils, if you will. A federal republic with a figurehead – hopefully an Iraqi Christian who can somehow appear to sidestep most of the major religious issues – will be established, most likely. We’ll try to give the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds as much autonomy as possible – going so far as their own militias (if only because disarmament would be impossible) – and then keep the UN on hand for about ten years while things cool down and we try to develop some kind of infrastructure. So long as we can get some wealth and resources back into their country – and circulating through their economy -, it’ll at least give them an incentive to stop the infighting and try to preserve what’s already there.

As for pulling out? We can’t move from South Korea until Kim shuts up or it will appear as if we’ve backed down in the face of his threats. To do that invites more belligerence on his part and could provoke new fits of anger that would still leave Japan in a shaky position. Perhaps a few years after we bring everyone to the table we can pull out. Not before.

Leave Japan? That’s iffy. Korea isn’t so vital as long as we have our bases in Japan. I wouldn’t pull out of there if only because it provides an excellent platform for power-projection. Germany? We might as well keep some troops there, although Italy’s the last place I’d pull out of altogether. If we’re going to abandon Europe altogether we might as well just keep some men in Iceland or Britain (just because our bases there are either large or strategically valuable) and Italy. Not that I like this approach.

The Middle East? I’d largely abandon Saudi Arabia for Iraq. Our troops will always be needed in the immediate vicinity however. It’s just fact. We have too many strategic interests to defend. I’m not of this new, isolationist opinion. More bases overseas leaves more room for projection. That’s not something I want to let go of so easily.

[Beowulf]

Who died and appointed Bush as the policeman of the globe?

The CCCP.

[Shinova]

course, would hussein been willing for reform?

Too many people make the mistake of thinking that Hussein is a stupid man who somehow fell into power.

He would reform, but it would take a concerted effort with the full support of the UN to do so.

Like anyone, he is interested in his own survival. And his survival is tied to his political survival.

I think if Iraq underwent reforms, Saddam's grip on his nation would weaken. I doubt Saddam would want this to happen.

Besides, if he was concerned only with his survival, he would've accepted when the other Arabs wanted to have him leave to Hague or something. But he didn't.

[weemadando]

I dont think him stupid, just evil. 1, how would you get the u.n. to agree on anything, 2, why would reforms keep him alive any longer?

1. You get the UN to agree on something by actually making some compromises and showing that you are willing not to be a unilateral arsehole in the eyes of the world. The UN has agreed on many things before, all it takes is some diplomacy, not some bitching.

2. Reforms with the UN would doubtless hinge on him being able to retain power, albeit in a lessened form. Remember, a lot of people don't like him and if and when he does fall from power, he knows that a lynchmob will likely be waiting.

Think about it, you don't negotiate with someone by saying - right, you're going to give up everything you have and then step outside where you'll be shot by our SWAT team. You get them to make small concessions while maintaining their illusion of control.

[weemadando]

How about having a little respect for their religion?

At the risk of sounding extreme, fundementalist Islam is not interested in our respect, it is interested in our submission. Yours, too.

Yes, but fundamentalist islam relies upon disgruntled recruits. What happens when those potential recruits are exposed to something other than the barrel of a tank paid for by the west? What happens when they are shown some respect? Do you see the pro-Palestinian protestors in the West bank being shot and killed or bombed intentionally by the fundamentalists? No you don't.

Provide people with a choice other than fundamentalism and militarism and doubtless many will take it

[Axis Kast]

It would have been difficult to do anything after September of last year. The cards were stacked from the beginning. Once Bush made too many threatening gestures the rest of the world was ready to flip him off. It happened when France came upon the idea of using the UNMOVIC inspectorate not merely to verify whether Resolution 1441 was being implimented, but to carry out the very disarmament that Bush had intended an invasion to take care of all along.

Could Bush have played this better? Yes. Would the French and Germans still have "tested the waters?" Yes.

[Queeb Salaron]

Bush became the policeman of the globe when he was elected president of the superpower. Having the power to affect the planet grants the responsibility of using it for the betterment of those influenced by you.

I would argue that this kind of power shouldn't exist in the first place, especially not when it chooses to act in a way that is not supported by most of the globe. Break it down into numbers: How many countries support the Bush? How many don't?

I would agree that having some kind of power or political sway (even if I think it shouldn't exist) does carry with it a certain amount of responsibility. But no one ever asked for the US to do this for them. The UN didn't stand up and say, "Hey, Bush, we got this problem down in Iraq..." No. Bush did it on his own. Granted, it could have been as a result of all that 9-11 bullshit, or maybe he used that as an excuse to finish up what daddy couldn't do. Either way, no one told him to go do it. He's become Judge, Jury and Executioner. He's not acting on the will of the many, but on his own whims and fancies. He was on an anti-terror binge, however justified that was or was not, and bent over backwards to tie Sadaam into terrorism. This is not what an unbiased policeman does. It's what a facist neo-colonialist does.