Turns out bush really IS a uniter, not a divider!

[Dexter]

He's uniting the whole damn islamic world. And Iraqs new constitution is going to be dominated by Islam.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050726/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_050726195035

Oh joy. Iraq, formally a moderate by Islamic standards, is about to get an islam based constitution. Should bring them closer to Iran no end. Guess he is really a 'uniter' after all LOL 

[SirPoonga]

Blaming Bush for something that would have happened if either Bush or Kerr were in office?  Obviously they were waiting for the US to stop dictating so they could take over

[ChadTower]

I think it's kind of cool that they're being given the freedom to truly do what they want with their new gov't rather than being told what to do by the leaders that handed them their country.

The US could easily have told them hell no, we didn't free your country just to watch it become a theocracy.

[SirPoonga]

Yeah, that's true.  From our point of view it may suck, but it is still bettern than a ruthless dictator rulling the country...

[ChadTower]

Well, if the history of Islamic theocracies tells us anything, that will be the end result.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

So we took out a dictator who ruled over the Middle East's most progressive, secular nation, on the premise that he presented a direct threat to the U.S. (forget this revisionism about "spreading freedom", that's post-game rhetoric, after the WMD thing didn't really pan out), only to have him replaced with a more theocratic, "Iran-Friendly", "Anti-women's rights" regime?

Nice. How does this "make us more safer" exactly? I mean that *was* the point right? Furthermore, this may not do anything to prevent a coming civil war...where the outcome would be remarkably more pro-fundamentalist. In fact, it may very well help it along.

This sort of dashes my hopes for those Bush statues that were supposed to be erected in Central Baghdad.   

[shmokes]

You know what Saddam Hussein's Iraq had a tendency to not breed?

Terrorists.

[ChadTower]

They didn't breed them, they employed them. 

[shmokes]

I suppose they did to some extent.  Chad is, I assume, referring to Iraq sending money to the families of dead (of course) Palastinian suicide bombers.  Giving aid to the families whose' breadwinners died trying to force out an occupying country is a far cry from the types of terrorists who are attacking the U.S. and foreign U.S. assets.

When we defeated Japan and Germany in WWII we certainly didn't give those people's the blessed freedom to create another Nazi party governing Germany or a military dictatorship in Japan.  Democracy isn't some magic bullet that just cures everything as soon as it's in place.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

They didn't breed them, they employed them. 

And who knows...maybe in the future, they'll be able to elect them!  Freedom is on the march.

[ChadTower]

If we were to call them and tell them they could not have an Islamic theocracy, it would be equivalent to us saying we do not respect Islam and actually do consider it the root of the violence in the region.

[shmokes]

People on the left didn't want to go there at all.  People on the right wanted to go there to protect our security.  Nobody gave a damn about their freedom.

And we wouldn't allow them to have a christian theocracy either.

[ChadTower]

The concept of a Chrisitian theocracy is irrelevant since it would never happen.  All that matter is what DOES happen, and there is no way we can step on this without destroying any remaining appearance of integrity we have left.

Besides, personally, I don't see anything wrong with it.  If we really want to set them up and get the eff out, this is how it must happen.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

If we were to call them and tell them they could not have an Islamic theocracy, it would be equivalent to us saying we do not respect Islam and actually do consider it the root of the violence in the region.  That would be contradictory to the whole "we don't blame the religion, we blame a few extremists" stance we've always taken.  It would, in effect, alienate far more of the Muslims in the world than anything we've done to this point.

It would also be contradictory to having supposedly overthrown the gov't there to give them freedom.  This choice is taking advantage of the freedom they now have. 

I agree with you on the above, but I also don't see how any of this has "made America safer", which was supposed to be the point, and instead, I believe Iraq has become (and was always going to be) a huge distraction from the all-too ambiguous "War on Terror." In fact, it has proven to have increased the threat of terrorism worldwide. So i'd say it has gone beyond failure.

We were never going to defeat an ideology with guns and bombs. The hatred and motivation has already spread to London. It will reach our shores again.

As for solutions, it looks as if America has worn out it's welcome in Iraq (if it ever *was* welcome in the first place)...it's time to pull back to the borders, promise support and bring in the international community and divvy up the reconstruction contracts with those who'll promise to help rebuild Iraq's infrustructure, while attempting to employ as many Iraqi civilians in said project as possible. We should forego building the U.S. military bases, which will only inflame the region more. I don't even think that it remotely possible under this administration, so the best one can do is to *at least* hold them accountable for their mistakes in the hopes that they will be forced to either change their tactics, or pay a heavy price, politically, for their decisions, so that future administrations will think twice before making the same mistakes.

This is why my side is so prone to "blame/bash Bush" for how things turn out in Iraq and places elsewhere related...holding him and his administration accountable is as much a part of a viable solution as the plan I've outlined above, because after all, he is the friggin' president, and this is, without a shadow of a doubt, his War.


EDIT: Spelling/Grammar.

mrC

[JB]

I suppose they did to some extent.  Chad is, I assume, referring to Iraq sending money to the families of dead (of course) Palastinian suicide bombers.  Giving aid to the families whose' breadwinners died trying to force out an occupying country is a far cry from the types of terrorists who are attacking the U.S. and foreign U.S. assets.

Occupying nation, ---my bottom---.

Palestine is the one that kept attacking Israel.
They just kept losing, and then kept ceding land in the truces.

Eventaully they didn't have any more land to cede. And that's where we are now. One nation quashed out of existence because it was too stupid to know when to quit.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Palestine is the one that kept attacking Israel.
They just kept losing, and then kept ceding land in the truces.

Eventaully they didn't have any more land to cede. And that's where we are now. One nation quashed out of existence because it was too stupid to know when to quit.

This comment completely disregards the history behind Israel's creation and the history of the region in general. It's not even close to being accurate.

[hanelyp]

The modern state of Israel was created by the UN following WW2.  Not long after Israel's arab neighbors attacked and lost.  Several years later some of them attacked again and got their backsides whooped.  More recently, offered the vast majority of what he publically asked for, Arafat walked away from the peace talks and started the current murder/suicide attacks.

[TheVengeance]

The modern state of Israel was created by the UN following WW2.

[Dartful Dodger]

If we're ever going to have world peace, or even the thought of getting along with one another, it's a must , we have to STOP AID TO ISRAEL !

Having a country with nuclear power defending itself in the middle east will not bring world peace.

If the USA can fund artists who stick whips up their rectum, it can afford to give aid to an allied country that has the power to destroy the planet.

[TheVengeance]

If we're ever going to have world peace, or even the thought of getting along with one another, it's a must , we have to STOP AID TO ISRAEL !

Having a country with nuclear power defending itself in the middle east will not bring world peace.

If the USA can fund artists who stick whips up their rectum, it can afford to give aid to an allied country that has the power to destroy the planet.

Do you honestly believe, for one moment, that Israel is an ally?

[Dartful Dodger]

Do you honestly believe, for one moment, that Israel is an ally?

yes

[TheVengeance]

Not knowing you personally, I suppose I'll let that pass. Hell , you could be anybody on the other side my screen.

They've been the victim for so many years how could they possibly be a violent people!

[Dartful Dodger]

** Added a small link to show just how caring the Israeli population truly is.

WARNING : NOT FOR THE BORN AGAIN CHRISTIAN

Jesus was a Jew.

Israel is our friend.

We need friends that can kick butt.

[JB]

Palestine is the one that kept attacking Israel.
They just kept losing, and then kept ceding land in the truces.

Eventaully they didn't have any more land to cede. And that's where we are now. One nation quashed out of existence because it was too stupid to know when to quit.

This comment completely disregards the history behind Israel's creation and the history of the region in general. It's not even close to being accurate.

It's more accurate as calling them an occupying nation is.

Perhaps an oversimplification, but it's at least factually accurate.

[iwillfearnoevil]

This comment completely disregards the history behind Israel's creation and the history of the region in general. It's not even close to being accurate.

i  wonder why "palenstinian" terrorists are only attacking israel when "their land" was given to 3 or 4 countries and not just israel.

[Dexter]

http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level.php?cat=Religion&loid=8.0.191183114&par=0

Couple this with the fact that Islamic law (Shari'a) rules over any existing law so you can kiss goodbye to women's rights also.

What Iraq needs is a secular leader in control to tame  the islamic extremism. Hmm, I Wonder if that Hussein fella wants his old job back??

Ah yes. Freedom is on the march ROTFLMAO

[ChadTower]

Having a country with nuclear power defending itself in the middle east will not bring world peace.

Well then, we'd better set up bases in Iran and India then.

[tommy]

Well then, we'd better set up bases in Iran and India then.

Excellent idea. *In a Megatron voice* We can control the WORLD!!!  HAA HAA. 

[mr.Curmudgeon]

If the USA can fund artists who stick whips up their rectum, it can afford to give aid to an allied country that has the power to destroy the planet.

Funding for the National Endowment for the Arts was cut by 40% in the early 90's, so based on your "logic" above, I guess we should do the same for Israel. I'd support that.

Furthermore, as a side note, that Mapplethorpe photo was taken in 1978...your analogy would be more pertinent if you were referencing something more contemporary. I mean, you might as well cite the Venus of Willendorf as an example of offensive artwork.

As another side note, I find it worth noting that Bush Junior actually held up the current funding levels for the NEA with his 2006 budget. So, kudos to him! Whether or not he'll equate this support with a continued need to fund Israel remains to be seen.


mrC

[AceTKK]

Representative Democracy, Theocracy, Monarchy, who gives a $hit as long as the new government guarantees us favorable trade advantages in the petroleum market.  Do you really think this war was about "freedom"?

[ChadTower]

Representative Democracy, Theocracy, Monarchy, who gives a $hit as long as the new government guarantees us favorable trade advantages in the petroleum market.