Usa Mistakes In Iraq Iraq War

[kasm 0]

The US Mistakes in Iraq issue:

 

1- Going to war in Iraq?without UN backing but against its will..

 

2- Ignoring the investigation by UN inspectors about WMD.

 

3- Depending on information from on Iraqis in exile.

 

4- For a political reason they stressed that " Shiite are the majority " and stop. In fact this is not the whole truth. They could say that Shiite is the majority among Arabs in Iraq. But Shiites are not the majority in Iraq. Since the Kurds [who distinguish themselves from Arabs now day] are Sunni. Then the Sunni's from Arabs and Kurds are the majority. That why the president of Iraq after the invasion was either Sunni Arab or Kurd. Morever the American invasion brought many Shittes to Iraq [and many non Iraqis as Iraqis]

 

5- Resolving the army. This make a huge vacuum. So the border can not observed and the internal security as well. Also it make all the former Army members without pension and without job . So most of them join the Resistance.

 

6- Helping the Shiite to dominant the political institution in Iraq. Shiite will be affected by Iran without doubt. Most of them were in exile in Iraq. If they are not fighting USA occupation that because they happy that USA derived them to the power. They achieved that cheaply. They continue to not resist to strengthen their presence. Until arising contradiction towards achieving their goal, the will continue to not resist. But one day they will be in conflict with US and with backing of Iran will be disaster to US. This will be big trouble to USA By the dependent Shiite branch [El Sadr group] are making some trouble to US. But most of the other Shiite [The Hakim group] has Iranian relation and easy to be influenced by Iran.

 

7- Blessing of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sustani because he is not declaring war on the Occupation and the majority of Shiattis are influenced by him. But he an Iranian and has no Iraq's citizen. He is living in Iraq in what named Holly cities to the Shiite. He has the blessing of US since he is not call to the Resistance so far. While he has been scrupulously non-violent and restrained even in his speech, Sustani is extremely forceful ?. It will be mistaken if American think that this will continue.

 

8- It is mistake to accuse Syria and Iran with allowing the terrorists to come in Iran. Never they accused Saudi Arabia where there are strong border with Iraq and strong acting of Al_-Qaeda in that kingdom. Syria and El_al-Qaeda are in odd. Iran is Shiite and El-al-Qaeda is Sunni, If anybody pass from Iran or Syria pass to Iraq is the same as terrorists are living and passing to USA or Germany. Any body can travel to another country by getting Visa for different purpose. He/she will not prevail what he/she is intend to do in the country. Moreover blaming other country to not secure their border to prevent illegal entering is not fair. The complaining country is who has the responsibility to protect themselves by their mean Moreover does USA can secure their border with Mexico to prevent 100% the illegal immigrations?

 

9- Banning the Bath's party and their members in the new political system. Is that a democracy to exclude a huge portion of the society from the political process. Of course with their removal, the Constitution and the Parliament will reflect this shortage. This will generate a group working under ground and resist the outcome of these process.

 

10- Supporting the Kurds for Seperation and this will upset TURKEY and the Sunnis. The armed militias of the non-Arab Kurds are real armies that have been trained and supplied for years in their autonomous homeland under the protection of the allied "no fly" zone. If anything threatens their important interests, Kurds could start resist the American.

 

11- The political events, the transitional Administrative Law divided rather than unified and create the divided Iraq. So the constitution follow that. The problem is that division is opposed by Sunnis[ and most of Arabic countries] but the desired unity threatens the Kurdish bottom line of autonomy from the Arabs and Shiiti dream to unified with Iran in future. The Sunni demand that they not be ruled by what they consider heretical Shia law.

 

12- Calling all the Resistance as terrorists. In fact wasn't any presence to them in Iraq in the former regime. Both are in odd. Even if Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was living there that not mean that there are cooperation between them. How many terrorists were and still living in USA, Germany, UK,...etc. Who acted in 11 September attack were living and training in USA. Who did London attack were born and living there. The same who did Madrid booming. So don't tell that Zarquawi was living in Iraq and this is to approval of the relation between Saddam and the Quadi group. As you can not say that because the deputy of Osam benLadin is Egyptian that mean Egypt is blessing the Al-Qaeda. .The same you can not say that because Osam Bin_Ladin has Saudi citizen and most of 11 September terrorists were Saudi, give you to decide that Saudi-Arabia is blessing the terrorism.

Edited January 18, 2007 by kasm (see edit history)

[blendergalactica 0]

First off let me say this: We don't have to send our kids to these places to die. Not when we have bombs, drones, and tactical nukes.

 

The US Mistakes in Iraq issue:

 

1- Going to war in Iraq without UN backing but against its will..

 

Outside of a relief agency, name one time the UN has intervened usefully since 1956? And even on the Humanitarian side of things they don't have a great track record. But they are better than nothing. The UN, like the US nuclear weapons policy, is a relic of the Cold War.

 

Gee...and when you're getting kickbacks, or your son is, from a little thing called the Oil-for-food program, you think that might sway the UN's opinion a little?

 

And if you want to get technical, as far as I can tell this was a renewal of hostilities from the 1991 cease-fire agreement. Iraq broke the terms of cease-fire. I don't hear anyone disputing that.

 

And finally: when you get the UN involved, all you get is a cease-fire...which does nothing but put things off till another day.

 

Call me old fashion, but I still like the days when it took an act of War from congress to go to war and the war didn't end until surrender/treaty.

 

 

2- Ignoring the investigation by UN inspectors about WMD.

 

The US found chemical weapons in Iraq. Most were stored improperly and inert, some wasn't, but the problem here was with the term "stockpile". What constitutes a stockpile? 5 chemical shells? 10? 100? 1000?

 

Furthermore, Saddam had all the gear to start up production again once sanctions were lifted.

 

3- Depending on information from on Iraqis in exile.

 

Yeah, that's the truth. Anyone else remember the stories of Baby's being pulled off life support in Kuiwait City in 1990? The stories proved to be complete lies, yet exiled refugees told them before Congress in 1990/1991. Also, the Clinton era orders on HUMIT (Human Intelligence) really hurt the CIA. The whole point of the CIA is to deal with bad people and do bad things...just make sure it doesn't wind up on the front page of the New York Times.

 

4- For a political reason they stressed that " Shiite are the majority " and stop. In fact this is not the whole truth. They could say that Shiite is the majority among Arabs in Iraq. But Shiites are not the majority in Iraq. Since the Kurds [who distinguish themselves from Arabs now day] are Sunni. Then the Sunni's from Arabs and Kurds are the majority. That why the president of Iraq after the invasion was either Sunni Arab or Kurd. Morever the American invasion brought many Shittes to Iraq [and many non Iraqis as Iraqis]

 

Now there gets to be a lot of arguement here, but the Sunni/Shiite split not only along religous, but ethnic lines as well. A vast majority of Sunni's are Arab (in that region...I'm not sure what Indoneasia is off the top of my head) while the vast majority of Shiite are Persian (i.e. the ethnic populus of Iran).

 

Basically I think this goes back more to ethnic lines than religon as those population groups have been fighting long before the founding of the Islamic religon. So in that regaurds, you have the Persians, Kurds, and Sunni. The single largest bloc of which are those siding with the Persian. (Again whether they consider themselves Arab or Persian I can't recall.)

 

I think our single biggest mistake here was thinking there was anything to hold Iraq together. There isn't. There wasn't such a thing as an "Iraqi" until the 1950's. Loyalities in that part of the world are much more to tribal/famliy/ethnic/religous lines. It may have been best to divide the country in three, pull US troops up the Kurdish areas (where we haven't seen a lot of problems and the local population was very pro-western) and then sit on the new Kurdistan/Turkish boarder to make sure they didn't start shooting at eachother. Then let the Sunnis and Shiite shoot it out.

 

 

5- Resolving the army. This make a huge vacuum. So the border can not observed and the internal security as well. Also it make all the former Army members without pension and without job . So most of them join the Resistance.

 

Which Army are you talking about? The conscripts? Most of them surrendered or just went home. They weren't there to fight and I doubt would have made an effective military force. Conscripts were not in uniform by choice.

 

Most of the "career" military folks, especially the trained units of the republican gaurd, were loyal to Saddam, not Iraq. That doesn't even include the "special republican gaurds" and the baathist para-military units. They were loyal to the regieme. That being said, there were no truely unifying leaders in exile for the country nor many calling for democracy on the streets. There was no Charles De Gaulle for the Iraqi people to whom they could rally behind.

 

 

6- Helping the Shiite to dominant the political institution in Iraq. Shiite will be affected by Iran without doubt. Most of them were in exile in Iraq. If they are not fighting USA occupation that because they happy that USA derived them to the power. They achieved that cheaply. They continue to not resist to strengthen their presence. Until arising contradiction towards achieving their goal, the will continue to not resist. But one day they will be in conflict with US and with backing of Iran will be disaster to US. This will be big trouble to USA By the dependent Shiite branch [El Sadr group] are making some trouble to US. But most of the other Shiite [The Hakim group] has Iranian relation and easy to be influenced by Iran.

 

The Shiite, if we use the typical definitions on Iraq, are the largest single bloc of people in the geographical boundries of Iraq. To quote (Adele Stevenson I think): "The Middle East is a problem with boarders". Some british guy in the late 1940's drew lines on a map and suddenly new countries existed. It used to be just "Arabia". When the house of Saud came along and gained power, it became "Saudi Arabia"...and a few smaller countries.

 

And you're right about Iran meddeling in the affairs. Why do you think the US let Saddam subdue the uprising in (1993 iirc)? It was so the Shiites wouldn't gain power because they would become a proxy of Iran giving the Iranians control of too much of the world's oil production. The Shiites didn't forget that either.

 

Why Al Sadr is still alive is beyond me. Again this goes back to basic rules of engagement. If Al Sadr is in a Mosque...blow up the damned Mosque. We blew up church bell towers in World War II when German snipers hid inside. I saw plenty of Churches, Catholic and Luthern, still with pot marks and rebuilt sections due to Allied bombing when I lived near Hamburg, Germany.

 

And one day they will have backing form Iran? That's already happening. What is going on now in Iraq is NOT an insurgancy. It is a proxy war being fought by Iran against the United States. Iran is using the Shiite Militias in Iraq much the same way they used Hezbullah as a proxy force against Israel last summer. Don't forget we captured a few Iranian special forces in Iraq a couple months ago...

 

7- Blessing of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sustani because he is not declaring war on the Occupation and the majority of Shiattis are influenced by him. But he an Iranian and has no Iraq's citizen. He is living in Iraq in what named Holly cities to the Shiite. He has the blessing of US since he is not call to the Resistance so far. While he has been scrupulously non-violent and restrained even in his speech, Sustani is extremely forceful  . It will be mistaken if American think that this will continue.

 

He becomes forceful: Kill him. Given the current world affairs, the Regaen era self-imposed restriction on state sponsored assassination needs to end. We know where theAyatollahs in Iran live...we have extremely accurate missles...and taking out the Iranian leadership without taking on the rest of the population...priceless. (It worked pretty damn well with Kadafi over in Libya.)

 

(Just like the next time Hugo Chavaz's plane flys over the ocean...it has mysterious mechanical trouble and is never seen again. SM-3's have a habit of doing that.)

 

Of course we need to get our troops out of the area in order to take a more forceful approach otherwise risk retalliation.

 

8- It is mistake to accuse Syria and Iran with allowing the terrorists to come in Iran. Never they accused Saudi Arabia where there are strong border with Iraq and strong acting of Al_-Qaeda in that kingdom. Syria and El_al-Qaeda are in odd. Iran is Shiite and El-al-Qaeda is Sunni, If anybody pass from Iran or Syria pass to Iraq is the same as terrorists are living and passing to USA or Germany. Any body can travel to another country by getting Visa for different purpose. He/she will not prevail what he/she is intend to do in the country. Moreover blaming other country to not secure their border to prevent illegal entering is not fair. The complaining country is who has the responsibility to protect themselves by their mean Moreover does USA can secure their border with Mexico to prevent 100% the illegal immigrations?

 

Syria and Iran are no friends of the US. And the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Take Afganistan against the Soviets. Bin Ladan was not our friend, but in the 1980's: the Soviets were both our enemys. Both Al-Queda and the Iranians have a common foe in the region: the United States.

 

This has more to do with Israel than Iraq. Iran ships weapons to Hezbollah in Lebenon via Syria.

 

9- Banning the Bath's party and their members in the new political system. Is that a democracy to exclude a huge portion of the society from the political process. Of course with their removal, the Constitution and the Parliament will reflect this shortage. This will generate a group working under ground and resist the outcome of these process.

 

Historically it worked in Germany. Granted Nazi's were only about 10 - 15% of the German population, but I don't think the Bath party was much larger than that. They just happened to rule the country by force for 30 years.

 

 

 

 

10- Supporting the Kurds for Seperation and this will upset TURKEY and the Sunnis. The armed militias of the non-Arab Kurds are real armies that have been trained and supplied for years in their autonomous homeland under the protection of the allied "no fly" zone. If anything threatens their important interests, Kurds could start resist the American.

 

Yes, but I think the Kurds could be reasoned with and told in no uncertain terms: okay we'll support dividing Iraq into 3 countries. You get a Kurdistan, but you have to regonize the border of Turkey. Furthermore: you get to have your own "national guard" to protect your streets. But there will be permanent US military bases and your army will be the US Army. Let them spend their oil money on building up their people, not trying to enlarge the land. If they want to welcome in kurdish populations from Turkey, let them.

 

To quell Turkey, offer some kind of pipeline deal where Turkey sees some oil revenue and the US continues it's support for Turkey's bid to get into the EU. After all, Turkey is part of NATO...but that didn't keep the Turks and Greeks using NATO weapons from shooting at each other back in the 1960's either.

 

11- The political events, the transitional Administrative Law divided rather than unified and create the divided Iraq. So the constitution follow that. The problem is that division is opposed by Sunnis[ and most of Arabic countries] but the desired unity threatens the Kurdish bottom line of autonomy from the Arabs and Shiiti dream to unified with Iran in future. The Sunni demand that they not be ruled by what they consider heretical Shia law.

 

Again, in hindsight, dividing the country up may have been a better solution. Not a perfect solution, but then we probably could have retreated to the north and then let the Arabs and Persians fight it out...then we deal with the victor.

 

12- Calling all the Resistance as terrorists. In fact wasn't any presence to them in Iraq in the former regime. Both are in odd. Even if Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was living there that not mean that there are cooperation between them. How many terrorists were and still living in USA, Germany, UK,...etc. Who acted in 11 September attack were living and training in USA. Who did London attack were born and living there. The same who did Madrid booming. So don't tell that Zarquawi was living in Iraq and this is to approval of the relation between Saddam and the Quadi group. As you can not say that because the deputy of Osam benLadin is Egyptian that mean Egypt is blessing the Al-Qaeda. .The same you can not say that because Osam Bin_Ladin has Saudi citizen and most of 11 September terrorists were Saudi, give you to decide that Saudi-Arabia is blessing the terrorism.

 

And the Saudi's aren't are allies. Not really. They are the ones funding folks like Bin Ladan. The way to deal with those folks is: Assassinations. We know who these people are, start killing them and not all to quitely. People seem to think twice when cruise missiles beging flying through bedroom windows. And it only takes a few before people get the point too.

 

The ole terrorist/freedom fighter debate. Not going to go there, because it won't end. Again, from what I see, what the US is fighting now is a proxy war with Iran...only we won't bomb Iran. We are going to have to do something about Iran. Personally, without an internal revolt, I see Iran getting nuked by 2010. Either by the United States or by the Israelis.

Edited January 18, 2007 by blendergalactica (see edit history)

[Yacoby 0]

The US found chemical weapons in Iraq. Most were stored improperly and inert, some wasn't, but the problem here was with the term "stockpile". What constitutes a stockpile? 5 chemical shells? 10? 100? 1000?

 

Furthermore, Saddam had all the gear to start up production again once sanctions were lifted.

We were not looking for chemical weapons. We were looking for Nuclear Missiles with the range to reach Britain. Or that was what we were told.

We didn't find any. The longest range missile we found would only go something like 160Miles. The chemical weapons we found weren't very much worth worrying about. Anyway, I am guessing most countrys mess around with chemical weapons.

 

The US wasn't ever that interested in the WMD, it was more interested in the oil.

 

 

 

I think our single biggest mistake here was thinking there was anything to hold Iraq together. There isn't. There wasn't such a thing as an "Iraqi" until the 1950's. Loyalities in that part of the world are much more to tribal/famliy/ethnic/religous lines. It may have been best to divide the country in three, pull US troops up the Kurdish areas (where we haven't seen a lot of problems and the local population was very pro-western) and then sit on the new Kurdistan/Turkish boarder to make sure they didn't start shooting at eachother. Then let the Sunnis and Shiite shoot it out.

Saddam, for all his faults, was holding Iraq together. His methods may have not been very nice, but he was doing it. We come in and start a civil war (I never notice one before we invaded), and you suggest we just abandon it?

 

Which Army are you talking about? The conscripts? Most of them surrendered or just went home. They weren't there to fight and I doubt would have made an effective military force. Conscripts were not in uniform by choice.

 

Unfortunately, they had a lot of weapons, which I imagine most of them quite happily sold.

 

 

Why Al Sadr is still alive is beyond me. Again this goes back to basic rules of engagement. If Al Sadr is in a Mosque...blow up the damned Mosque.

That sort of atitue isn't going to help. Iraq, Iran etc seem alot more devout than we are now, so it may seem like nothing to us, but you remember the Danish cartoons? We don't really want to be know for blowing up Mosqurs

 

And one day they will have backing form Iran? That's already happening. What is going on now in Iraq is NOT an insurgancy.

No, it is a resistance movement. Almost exactly the same as the French resistance fighters from World War II.

That is what really gets me, no one seems to see the similarity.

 

Of course we need to get our troops out of the area in order to take a more forceful approach otherwise risk retalliation.

It would make a great recruting poster. "Help us kill the Americans that killed xyz".

 

Historically it worked in Germany. Granted Nazi's were only about 10 - 15% of the German population, but I don't think the Bath party was much larger than that. They just happened to rule the country by force for 30 years.

 

The problem was the some members of the Bath party were only memebers so they could do their job, not because of any loyalties to anyone.

 

And the Saudi's aren't are allies. Not really. They are the ones funding folks like Bin Ladan. The way to deal with those folks is: Assassinations. We know who these people are, start killing them and not all to quitely. People seem to think twice when cruise missiles beging flying through bedroom windows. And it only takes a few before people get the point too.

I hope you like your oil? If so, I don't advise to to anger the people who produce it.

 

The ole terrorist/freedom fighter debate. Not going to go there, because it won't end.

*Nods*

 

Again, from what I see, what the US is fighting now is a proxy war with Iran...only we won't bomb Iran.

 

Yeh, using the Israelis, in a way, the Israelis war against Lebanon(sp?) was just a US funded country verses as Iranian funded group.

 

 

We are going to have to do something about Iran. Personally, without an internal revolt, I see Iran getting nuked by 2010. Either by the United States or by the Israelis.

I hope the US leaders are cleaver enough to work out that using Nukes against a county is not a good idea.

What if any other country with Nukes decides to get involved because the radiation kill thousands of their people? The radiation from a nuke spreads a very long way.

 

EDIT:

Ooops.

Note to self: Do not use Italics in place of quotes.

Edited January 18, 2007 by Yacoby (see edit history)

[glenstein 0]

First off let me say this: We don't have to send our kids to these places to die. Not when we have bombs, drones, and tactical nukes.

 

Outside of a relief agency, name one time the UN has intervened usefully since 1956? And even on the Humanitarian side of things they don't have a great track record. But they are better than nothing. The UN, like the US nuclear weapons policy, is a relic of the Cold War.

Hmmm, how about ending apartheid in South Africa. Or maybe their involvement in the end of the civil war in El Salvador? What about their involvement in overseeing democracy in Cambodia, Namibia, El Salvador, Eritrea, Mozambique, Nicaragua, South Africa, Kosovo and East Timor (copied from source). There is some actual democracy. What about their involvement in the resolution of the (just months ago) vicious Israel/Hezbollah conflict. More than any other institution it was the U.N. which levered pressure to attain an at least temporary peace and stop the bloodshed (which the U.S. for example, wasn't able to do).

 

I will be sure to answer your other points in the future, but this is so amazingly false I don't know where to begin. I'm going to guess you haven't read the Human Security Report 2005, a study on global post-cold war violence. It's especially ironic that you call the U.N. a "relic of the Cold War", since after the Cold War (that is, outside of, detatched from, not connected to the Cold War) some of their most flourishing successes have taken place.

 

The report notes that between 1991 and 2004, 43 conflicts around the world which the U.N. was involved in were contained or ended. International crises between 1981 and 2001 dropped 70%. The average amount of deaths per armed conflict (the bloodiness of war) is down 98% since 1950. It goes on and on and on, spreading over countless issues. But you don't hear it on Fox news because it's mostly quiet diplomacy, it's elections, it's giving people food, it's treaties that reduce nuclear proliferation, it's aversion of conflict. There is no organization spearheading these efforts like the U.N. is so spare us the nonsense about them "not achieving anything" (really... anything?)

 

This is an institution tasked with overseeing virtually every geopolitical and environmental and humanitarian crisis that occurs anywhere in the world, and they operate under a budget that is merely a sliver of a fraction of what the U.S. spends on arms every year. The planet is a fairly big place and there is a lot going on.

 

But most importantly, your tarring of the U.N. has nothing to do with the relevant issue, i.e. whether the U.S. gets to claim it was enforcing a decade old resolution that spoke to a fundamentally different situation whilst being consistently warned by the same body that it had no legal authorization to do so.

 

And being able to tarnish the UN's reputation and call them ineffective, and trotting out all these overblown, out of context points (did you know that the U.S. received over 50% of Hussein's oil kickbacks and that those haven't been investigated?) are just distractions, distractions, distractions. The U.S.'s war was opposed by the U.N., period. Opposed by them. Saying the U.N. is no good for all these different reasons is short sighted, distracting, unfair, and totally irrelevant.

Edited January 18, 2007 by glenstein (see edit history)

[glenstein 0]

Here is a link on the fact about oil for food deals mostly happening within the U.S. It's Senators like Norm Coleman who have showy investigations on this, always having hearings on people in the U.N. and on war critics like George Galloway (who has twice been held at hearings over this, once with proven forgeries that were never investigated).

 

Yesterday's report makes two principal allegations against the Bush administration. Firstly, it found the US treasury failed to take action against a Texas oil company, Bayoil, which facilitated payment of "at least $37m in illegal surcharges to the Hussein regime".

Of course that is one of several examples and of course they were never investigated.

[Yratorm, LightMage 0]

Well now, this is a topic I generally steer clear off, basically because emotions run high, and when emotions run high, logic and simple common sense generally go right out of the window. However, because this forum is a wonderful place and I really like the people here, I will break my rule this once and make a statement..

 

------------------------------------

The U.S. attack on Afghanistan could be called an act of self defense. In a sense, it had a purity of purpose - simple revenge You hit us, we hit you. Well, sometimes people need that to understand that they should 'lay off'.

 

Now I'm not a U.S. citizen and I've spent years in pakistan, afghanistan and iraq (and no, I'm not a citizen of those countries either) - however, I'm pretty good at understanding the middle east, as you can imagine.

 

The U. S. attack on afghanistan was pretty much justified to my mind - and better still (from the point of view of U.S. interests), it was breaking the WILL of the jehadis - it was affecting their FAITH IN ALLAH - how do I know this? I was IN afghanistan at the time. The U.S. doesn't realize how close, HOW VERY CLOSE it was to total VICTORY over the jehad movement. People were turning away from the mullahs, or rather the maulanas as they are really called - U.S. victory in afghanistan was that effective.

 

Okay, up to now, everything's working fine - it's all guns and roses, right? Now Bush has to screw all this up.

 

------------------------------------

NOW Bush makes his fatal mistake. He gets greedy.

Now some americans may bull-s**t themselves or BE bulls**tted into believing that Bushy was after WMD's or chemical weapons, but most of the world knows d**n well what Bushy wanted - he wanted to control Iraq's oil reserves, plain and simple.

 

Now I'll tell you one thing, if Bush had REALLY gone in with his motives pure, to rid Iraq of a dictator, things would have turned out differently. People sense honesty, they are more intelligent than Bush thinks. But his motives were not honest - they can be summed up in two words - greed and power. Heck, if he'd managed to pull it off and been able to grab Iraq's oil for America he'd have become a little tin god back home.

 

And to that I have only one answer. It's an old saying, and perhaps someone should have said it to Bush when he was younger. And the saying is, 'You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.' It's a little bit of wisdom, that (if Bush only realized it) could have saved both him and America a great deal of trouble.

 

------------------------------------

I am a dispassionate spectator. I don't care one bit if an american is republican or democrat or what views each holds.

I was trained as an assassin by a Ninja Ryu in the east, and the first thing we learned in the Ryu is to NOT be passionate where politics are concerned - it DISTORTS one's logic and judgement. Politicians and presidents come and go, and most of them are dirty liars. So is Bush. The first time I saw him in a picture on a newspaper, just after he was elected, my thoughts were 'god help america.' We learn to study faces and character in the Ryu, you see. Bush is not just a liar - he's a bungling incompetent as well, and the sooner America sees the last of him, the sooner it can move into a brighter and better future. You don't need a Bush for a president - you need an Abe Lincoln. Now THERE was a president.

 

No offense to anyone. Anyone who finds any part of this post offensive - feel free to, I don't really care. I'm a dispassionate observer. I don't care one bit what america does. My best advice to all americans, is, when you elect a president, think of Lincoln, and match characters - if the character doesn't come close to matching any of the candidates, don't vote, any of you - start a MASS MOVEMENT and DEMAND that better CANDIDATES be brought forward instead.

 

------------------------------------

And I'll tell you one thing - america is a BIG country, with a LOT of wonderful people in it - SOMEWHERE among those people is a man who is good, and great, and intelligent and ethical and honorable - a man who would make a GREAT president. Or perhaps it's a woman.

 

YOUR DUTY, as AMERICANS, is not to simply vote blindly for whoever is put before you, but to FIND that great man or woman, the GREAT, good, kind, honest president that America NEEDS, and THEN put HIM or HER in the Oval Office.

 

And THEN I think America will continue to be the wonderful land of freedom and hope that her founding fathers intended her to be. Right now, and I say this DISPASSIONATELY, America is starting to lose her wonderful soul to petty politicians, to liars, charlatans and frauds.

 

------------------------------------

Take care all, and remember, all humans, Iraqi, Afghan, Russian, American - are all HUMAN first, and therefore our brothers and sisters. Deaths are not divided into 'ours' and 'theirs', for we are all FAMILY.
Edited January 19, 2007 by Yratorm, LightMage (see edit history)

[Hagar9999 0]

Wow, Yratorm - a concise, utterly informed and coldly ruthless assessment of the US situation in iraq. Only to be expected from a person who actually trained with a Ninja Ryu, but still, a brilliant analysis. And (off topic) I think you've had a rather adventurous life - in a way, I envy you.

 

I really like reading your posts, you usually have a lot of interesting things to say, whatever the topic.

 

 

By the way, I'm glad there's another admirer of Lincoln here Yes, Bush does rather pale before Lincoln, doesn't he.

 

Anyway, glad to know a non-American half-way round the world can have such an admiration for Lincoln, one of America's greatest presidents; and for the 'spirit' of America; and for the ideals of the founding fathers.

You have been ruthless and coldly logical when 'taking apart' Bush's policies in Iraq, but when you talk of America itself, your whole tone changes. You actually admire America and American ideals a lot, don't you? - what you call the American 'soul'. And coming from a man like you, that pleases me, somehow.

 

I think America has had some wonderful presidents, and will have wonderful men again who will uphold it's ideals. And no, I don't count Bush among those men.

[Yratorm, LightMage 0]

Yes, Hagar, I'm an admirer of Lincoln, and I've read a great deal about him, and about most of the founding fathers as well.The way I see it, America is a great nation. And a nation like that needs a great man or woman to lead it, a person with a mind and heart and soul as big as the country itself.You can put any tribal leader in charge of some out-of-the way african country, and he'll rule more or less badly, and it won't matter (except to the poor people under him, of course).But America is different. It's not some out of the way nation, it's America. And every president who stands at the head of it stands in the shoes of men like Lincoln, and that's a great honor, but it's also a VERY great responsibility - a responsibility to be at least half the man he was - or to at least TRY.

[arnz 0]

Yes it does seem that America has had good presidents like Lincoln, Roosevelt, Jeffersen, Einshnhower (sp) to name a few. Bush Jnr wouldnt be counted among the lot (Iraq being one of the reasons). The 2-term limit for being president is a good thing, although I had read rumours about Bush trying to change it etc (dunno if its true or not, but I'd imagine Iraq being one of the reasons)

[cangor 0]

Ok, the US has done a lot of dumb stuff in Iraq, but let's also put this in perspective...There are a LOT of reasons why people think we have gone to war in Iraq and, regardless of whether each one is an actual reason or not, there is logic behind all three I will cover. I will go in order of more gov't friendly reasons to, in my opinion, more realistic reasons.1. There are WMDs there: Let's face it - this is a load of bull. All they found was a bunch of empty shells. If there were WMDs, they could have been a bit more furtive and discreet in their investigations so as to not give too much warning to the suspected weapons-makers and holders...2. Free the iraqis from a dictator: Well, yeah, but then why did we choose iraq? Pretty much every middle eastern country is a dictatorship!3. We need control of oil: Well, yeah, I guess this one is true. Oil production is faultering, and we need to have cheap oil to function as a country. Maybe. But think of it this way: Americans are addicted to oil. Just like someone who's addicted to crack doesn't care how much they have to pay to get it, so are americans. We won't give up our gas-guzzling SUVs just yet, and, well, if there really is an oil shortage, then going to take over ("democratize") Iraq is one step in the right direction.4. Wartime economy = good. Well, seriously, big business basically has the US government in their pocket.I definately don't agree with the war, but this country went to war for reasons. Sure, it's not our duty or right to be the police of the world, and I think we're just getting ourselves into a repeat of the Vietnam War, but maybe going to war in Iraq will have some positive long-term effects.

[Kioku 0]

I really don't get the point in these topics, especially if there's at least 20 of them existing already. I thought there was something against redundant topics, but whatever.The fact remains that Saddam really isn't that great of a guy. In fact, he was to put it bluntly a *BLEEP*. Genocide and the murder of innocent women and children doesn't earn you brownie points with me. Iraq wasn't such a nice place before we went in there. If anyone's benefitting from the US helping out, it's Iraq. Hundreds of billions of dollars and military support from one of the World's powers. Did I forget to mention we helped them oust Saddam? Aside from that, the only country being hurt here is the US. Every time an extremist decides that blowing themselves up in a crowded area is a good idea, we take the blame. The fact is that because we got ourselves into a mess, we have to work it out and help the country. You can't just knock out their leader and run away.