Korea & Iran Switch Positions - Relative Nuke-Danger

[walford]

A pivotal moment for 'axis of evil' (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0825/p01s02-usfp.html)
US Attitudes toward Iran and North Korea may be doing an about-face as Tehran talks tough and Pyongyang softens its line.
US relations with North Korea and Iran - the remaining members of President Bush's "axis of evil" - may be fast approaching crucial times.

This week, top diplomats from nations involved in the North Korean nuclear talks are huddling in Washington for strategy sessions. Full six-party meetings are set to resume next week - and US officials hope to build on what they call the positive experience of the last session of discussions.

The effort to contain Iran's nuclear efforts appears headed in the other direction.

The two nations have long presented the West with seesawing expectations. Until recently, US officials were more optimistic about progress with Iran, and frustrated with the prickly North Koreans. But there are also signs the two cases are intertwined in complicated ways as the United States confronts what is left of the axis of evil.

For now, US attitudes about Iran and North Korea may have switched. "In recent months, I think we've almost had a reversal of fortune," said Ted Galen Carpenter, a Cato Institute foreign policy expert, at a recent forum on these issues in Washington.

That doesn't mean a deal with North Korea is close, or that the Iranian situation is beyond hope. It does mean that the efforts to confront these challenges may adjust to new realities...

...For their part, Iran and North Korea are far from allies. The "axis" phrase (which, it should be said, the White House has long since abandoned) implies a relationship that does not really exist.

Yet that doesn't mean they don't watch and learn from each other, or even talk about their respective positions. Experts note that in recent months the North Koreans have begun speaking more like the Iranians, insisting on a right to civilian nuclear power.

"I would be shocked if the Iranians hadn't gone to the North Koreans" and compared positions, says George Perkovich, a nuclear-proliferation expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace...

...The US and its partners are looking at similarly serious ways to address North Korea's energy and security concerns, said Mr. Hill. With less than 30 percent of North Korea's overall electrical capacity currently online, energy is a particularly acute problem.

Iran, on the other hand, has only sounded more and more confident - some might say belligerent - since it resumed uranium conversion operations earlier this month.

Two words might account for Tehran's new forcefulness: oil and Iraq. Iran is a major oil producer, and thus might be able to manipulate already high world prices even higher if the West tries to punish it for its nuclear activities. And as Iraq's neighbor to the east, Iran is well positioned to interfere further there.

Iran also has a new hard-line president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has been adamant about pursuing the country's right to civilian nuclear energy.

Some experts predict that Iran may pull back from its nuclear negotiations and risk being referred to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions. Security Council members China and Russia could well be unwilling to censure a nation with which they have economic ties.

"I think the Iranians are willing to live with ... a possible referral to the Security Council," said Ray Takeyh, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, at a recent Washington issue forum.

[ElHombre]

Iran, on the other hand, has only sounded more and more confident - some might say belligerent - since it resumed uranium conversion operations earlier this month.

Two words might account for Tehran's new forcefulness: oil and Iraq. Iran is a major oil producer, and thus might be able to manipulate already high world prices even higher if the West tries to punish it for its nuclear activities. And as Iraq's neighbor to the east, Iran is well positioned to interfere further there.

they forgot to mention the reason they're in such a good position in regards to iraq...

[divisionbyzero]

OH NO!!! You mean people other than us would like to have nukes!!!1!1!!1 HOW DARE THEY!!!!!!!

[walford]

10-8

they forgot to mention the reason they're in such a good position in regards to iraq...I hate to have to keep reminding you of this, but Saddam is no longer financing/hosting terrorists, neglecting/brutalizing his people nor buying weapons from/bribing our 'friends.' Get the f*ck over it.

For the best interests of all concerned, perhaps we should focus our energies spent whining upon thinking of ways to expedite getting the job done so we can bring our troops home and give the Iraqis back their country -- which is what we want, right?

Or would we rather continue to give the 'insurgents' the idea that they should continue the bloodshed because we are becoming increasingly demoralized? Why not do everything we can to ensure that the mission fails just so Bush can be discredited -- regardless of the consequences?

OH NO!!! You mean people other than us would like to have nukes!!!1!1!!1 HOW DARE THEY!!!!!!!Yes, indeed. A totalitarian theocracy with mullahs who have a history of killing their own people wholesale in the name of the Almighty having the ability to kill the Infidel remotely by the millions at the push of a button is merely a matter of perspective.

[oldsoak]

Its not the possession of nukes that is the worry so much as who possesses them. The knowledge is out there. Anyone with a decent lab and materials could knock one up. The Swiss or Finns or Italians having nukes would not worry us as much as say, the Somalis. Likewise we dont mind the Russians or the Chinese. The reason for this being that there is a recognised culture of diplomacy, negotiation and compromise plus a perception of what happens the morning after the event with these guys. We currently dont see such a culture with the Iranians that gives us the same confidence we have when dealing with the Chinese or Russians.

[ElHombre]

I hate to have to keep reminding you of this, but Saddam is no longer financing/hosting terrorists, neglecting/brutalizing his people nor buying weapons from/bribing our 'friends.' Get the f*ck over it.

nope, SH is no longer doing his evil work. but what's taken his place is far worse. terrs have a great training ground to perfect their tactics. iran has a wonderful new client state. and we've almost 2,000 good americans due to incompetent political leadership. when was the last time you ever heard anyone say they wish their country was like iraq?


For the best interests of all concerned, perhaps we should focus our energies spent whining upon thinking of ways to expedite getting the job done so we can bring our troops home and give the Iraqis back their country -- which is what we want, right?

Or would we rather continue to give the 'insurgents' the idea that they should continue the bloodshed because we are becoming increasingly demoralized? Why not do everything we can to ensure that the mission fails just so Bush can be discredited -- regardless of the consequences?

if you have a plan, please let us know. the current one isn't working. or are events in iraq your definition of 'sucess'?

and if the mission fails, it's because of the incompetence which has led it, not any protests at home. the whole thing is a bush/ republican affair. they've called all the shots and they've gotten their way. it's not anyone's fault but their own that reality is biting them on the a$$. perhaps they shouldn't have ignored reality in the first place. at the moment, their only plan is to 'stay the course'. if they're not going to win, then the best we can do is leave.



OH NO!!! You mean people other than us would like to have nukes!!!1!1!!1 HOW DARE THEY!!!!!!!Yes, indeed. A totalitarian theocracy with mullahs who have a history of killing their own people wholesale in the name of the Almighty having the ability to kill the Infidel remotely by the millions at the push of a button is merely a matter of perspective.

yes iran is a problem. and with situation as it is, we can do ****-all about it. 'the war is over and iran won'. the administration has chosen war as its response and iran gets to reap the benefits of having a new ally on its western border.

[Baboonass]

Its not the possession of nukes that is the worry so much as who possesses them. The knowledge is out there. Anyone with a decent lab and materials could knock one up. .

LOL, That I'd like to see.

What yeild are you talking about acheiving?

[Vorian]

give the Iraqis back their country -- which is what we want, right?


I don't think US will just leave Iraq fully independant. My guess is that a muppet-government will take over after the American departure, ruling the ruins of this country and handing over oil to american companies. That's why the Europeans were so upset about the war. Saddam has been a good client to the French and german companies.

About Iran and N. Korea, they can't use nuclear weapons since US has the power to launch 100 nuclear missiles for everyone they send against them.

[ViktorNavorski]

if you have a plan, please let us know.

Speaking of which, do kindly let us know yours. For all the ideologue bitching you do, not much coherency come out.

[walford]

nope, SH is no longer doing his evil work. but what's taken his place is far worse.You will need to demonstrate how building a broad-based government, providing education, infrastructure etc. is worse than a situation in which tens of thousands filled mass-graves, <$1/capita was spent upon health care, children were tossed into pits to be stung by scorpions & hornets, wives raped in front of their husbands, amputations/castrations w/o anesthetics etc. etc.

terrs have a great training ground to perfect their tactics.Saddam was hosting/financing terrorists before.

iran has a wonderful new client stateIt is amazing how you have no substantiation for any of these assertions. This is a new one.

and we've almost 2,000 good americans due to incompetent political leadership.Sorry. Clinton's superior handling of terrorism no longer is in place. If you miss having terrorism responded to with cruise missiles & FBI indictments and think that those were better, that is mind-boggling.

when was the last time you ever heard anyone say they wish their country was like iraq?Certainly not when it was under Saddam's rule. The misery in Iraq is the fault of the 'insurgents' who have declared war upon the Iraqi people in order to install a new dictatorship. If not for them, Iraq would only be occupied by those rebuilding and fostering democracy.

if you have a plan, please let us know. the current one isn't working. or are events in iraq your definition of 'sucess'?This whining about a lack of plan is really about the fact that we have an enemy who is adapting and changing tactics. This is akin to blaming what has not even been conceived of by the enemy.

and if the mission fails, it's because of the incompetence which has led it, not any protests at home.OK, I don't mind posting this again:quote="2Sheds Jackson" Question: How did Hanoi intend to defeat the Americans?
Answer: By fighting a long war which would break their will to help South Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh said, "We don't need to win military victories, we only need to hit them until they give up and get out."

Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?
A: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.
the whole thing is a bush/ republican affair. they've called all the shots and they've gotten their way. it's not anyone's fault but their own that reality is biting them on the a$$.I suppose this 'reality' is that we must 'contain' dictators rather than remove them. One would think that the oceans of blood shed in Europe during the mid 20th century would have taught us that this is not possible.

Our 'friends' were agitating to lift the sanctions so that Saddam could buy even more weapons from them. What sort of 'peace' would an enriched, more heavily armed Saddam have purchased?


perhaps they shouldn't have ignored reality in the first place. at the moment, their only plan is to 'stay the course'. if they're not going to win, then the best we can do is leave.The plan is to not leave until Iraq is stabilized. Your plan apparently is that the situation is hopeless therefore we should undertake a precipitous withdrawal so that our soldiers died for nothing. The crowning achievement of your plan would be Osama bin Laden riding into Baghdad in triumph as the new Caliph.

Some plan.

yes iran is a problem. and with situation as it is, we can do ****-all about it. 'the war is over and iran won'. the administration has chosen war as its response and iran gets to reap the benefits of having a new ally on its western border.So you prophesy the 'insurgents' inevitable triumph? I do not share your craven pessimism. The vast majority of the Iraqi people want limited representative government. The fact that a minority of thugs are willing to kill those working to make this possible does not mean that we should run away. Have you bothered to consider what the consequences of this will be?

You truly are willing to preach for all of this evil to take place just so that you're hated GWBush can be shown wrong. Despicable.

[Vorian]

You will need to demonstrate how building a broad-based government, providing education, infrastructure etc. is worse than a situation in which tens of thousands filled mass-graves, <$1/capita was spent upon health care, children were tossed into pits to be stung by scorpions & hornets, wives raped in front of their husbands, amputations/castrations w/o anesthetics etc. etc.

Do you believe everything you watch in CNN? Before Gulf War I, Iraq had a well-oragnised health care system, Saddam didn't care much about hardcore Islam so it was not like Iraq, and poverty was in low levels. It was after the Gulg (and the Iraq-Iran war) that the country fell apart. And more civilians have died during the two wars and the occupation than in all Saddam's period (Though I don't say that Saddam was good or anything)

The same happened in Bosnia, they attacked saying they wanted to save the poor Kosovars who were being massacred by Millosevic and killed more than him during the prossess. I guess the Iraqis will be free when they die.

[walford]

Do you believe everything you watch in CNN?First, let's open by characterizing the opposing view as being borne of blind credulity w/o knowing the person's background. I am squirming with anticipation for what promises to be an unassailable rhetorical masterpiece.

Before Gulf War I, Iraq had a well-oragnised health care system,Compared to what? Any sourcing to back up this claim? Did not Saddam just get finished gassing the Kurds in the late '80s?

Saddam didn't care much about hardcore Islam so it was not like Iraq, and poverty was in low levels. It was after the Gulg (and the Iraq-Iran war) that the country fell apart. And whose fault is that?

And more civilians have died during the two wars and the occupation than in all Saddam's period (Though I don't say that Saddam was good or anything)Any data? Didn't Saddam start filling mass-graves after Desert Storm as we abandoned the Iraqi people, preferring 'containment' to regime change?

The same happened in Bosnia, they attacked saying they wanted to save the poor Kosovars who were being massacred by Millosevic and killed more than him during the prossess.If you care to discuss what happened in the Balkans during the '90s, by all means start a new thread. You'll have plenty of takers.
I guess the Iraqis will be free when they die.What sort of life did the Iraqis have under Saddam? These offhand comments that imply that 'of course life was better under Saddam' simply carry no weight w/o substantiation.

I can back up my assertions, can you?

[divisionbyzero]

Yes, indeed. A totalitarian theocracy with mullahs who have a history of killing their own people wholesale in the name of the Almighty having the ability to kill the Infidel remotely by the millions at the push of a button is merely a matter of perspective.
Are you somehow suggesting that they would actually use any nukes they would possess?

You claim to be able to back up your assertians, please provide evidence that these people are willing to kill their own people and that they will abuse the power of having nukes.

I am highly supportive of Iran/North Korea gaining nukes, as it will lead to a more bipolar world.

[walford]

You claim to be able to back up your assertians, please provide evidence that these people are willing to kill their own people and that they will abuse the power of having nukes.The Islamic Republic "glorifies the violence (http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/human_rights_quarterly/v018/18.3afshari.html) with religio-ideological exhortations" and "rules the country without a social system of justice." Iran is a point of origin, transit area and place of destination for [mostly female] slaves. "In Iran for 25 years, the ruling mullahs have enforced humiliating and sadistic rules and punishments (http://www.ecpat.net/eng/Ecpat_inter/IRC/newsdesk_articles.asp?SCID=1407) on women and girls, enslaving them in a gender apartheid system of segregation, forced veiling, second-class status, lashing and stoning to death."

It obtains confessions via torture and summary executions are commonplace. "Tens of thousands of suspected government opponents have been executed since the creation of the Islamic Republic in 1979," reports Amnesty International.

Are you somehow suggesting that they would actually use any nukes they would possess? ...I am highly supportive of Iran/North Korea gaining nukes, as it will lead to a more bipolar world.But not supportive enough to live in such places, right -- even though they are supposedly morally equivalent? Given that the Iranian government cannot be trusted to care for its own people w/o brutalizing them/killing them wholesale, I cannot fathom allowing them to have the ability to do the same to us. This is especially true given that they still chant 'Death to America' on a regular basis -- even to the point wherein they actually have a special day marked on their calendars (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05037/453096.stm) to commemorate this lofty goal.

The mullahs need to understand that obtaining nukes will not gain them prestige nor will it serve as a deterrent. It will instead guarantee US warplanes in their airspace dropping significant amounts of ordnace, which would be unfortunate -- for them.

[roland]

The Chinese are going to take care of the North Korean.
Who is going to take care of Iran ?
Russia should help "the West", that's there interest too and they are not badly placed. Turkey should feel concerned too.
Now I hesitate to say what I really think.
But here it is: if we don't declare mobilization now, we would have to do it later anyway but in a much less good position, facing Iran with nuke and spreading it everywhere. That's serious, we should accept sacrifice now. Hatefull Mullahs with nuke is NOT an option. imho.

[divisionbyzero]

I concede all points on the Irani treatment of its people.

However I dont see where you suggest the reason they would use nukes against the US. Why would they, its mutually assured destruction. They know that if they nuke us we will nuke them 10 times. The only reason they want nukes is for security, Why did russia not invade the west during the cold war? Because we could nuke them and vice versa.

[walford]

I concede all points on the Irani treatment of its people.

However I dont see where you suggest the reason they would use nukes against the US. Why would they, its mutually assured destruction. They know that if they nuke us we will nuke them 10 times. The only reason they want nukes is for security, Why did russia not invade the west during the cold war? Because we could nuke them and vice versa.Iran's calculations are fundamentally different from the Soviet Union. The USSR actually killed many more of it's own people [at least 50 million], but drew the line at self-destruction.

To varying degrees, the mullahs hold that they are the Almighty's instruments who are charged with the duty to spread the One True Faith. If that means wiping out the majority of the world's population, then so be it.

If they had nukes, they likely would not use them on the US, but may risk an exchange with Israel under certain circumstances. Bear in mind that the mere possession of nukes makes dealing with them tham much more difficult. Feeling more secure, they would likely become more aggressive regionally and would step up its support for anti-Israeli groups such as Hezbollah.

Furthermore, nukes would serve to entrench the current dictatorship's hold on power, thus quelling a growing internal movement toward democratization.

[divisionbyzero]

To varying degrees, the mullahs hold that they are the Almighty's instruments who are charged with the duty to spread the One True Faith. If that means wiping out the majority of the world's population, then so be it.
I disagree that they would go so far as guaranteeing the destruction of their nation in pursuit of this goal.


If they had nukes, they likely would not use them on the US, but may risk an exchange with Israel under certain circumstances. Bear in mind that the mere possession of nukes makes dealing with them tham much more difficult. Feeling more secure, they would likely become more aggressive regionally and would step up its support for anti-Israeli groups such as Hezbollah.
Israel is known to use eye for an eye and would be threfore even more likely to return any of Irans nukes with their own. Its true that they would become more brazen in their dislike of Israel, but that would create a more bipolar situation, which I am once again in support of.


Furthermore, nukes would serve to entrench the current dictatorship's hold on power, thus quelling a growing internal movement toward democratization.
Firstly, Iran is not a dictatorship, the power must be given to one man alone before it is a dictatorship. Iran however has various councils. It may Theocratic, but it is not a dictatorship. Second, how would them having nukes slow down democratization? I would think it would give the people fear that they would be used on Irans enemies, resulting in the destruction of their country, making them more likly to revolt. Its not like the government will use nukes on its own homeland, that would be an economic disaster.

[SuperShot5000]

Bull**** that North Korea has nukes. Their military spending is much to high to develop a nuke. Nukes are extremely expensive, and risky, to produce and need much time, care, and patience to create and carry a high risk of failure. They MIGHT have some crazy physio-brains waiting to do the work, but there's not much funding that would make a long range, high-kiloton weapon possible. Plus, their economy sucks more than a dirty hooker and their people eat grass.

I'm pretty confident Iran will have nukes in a few years. They have the know how and limitless funding from Islamo-faschist schlumps out there. The only way we can stop them is either war or something f*cks up during the project and the whole plant goes boom. Otherwise, boom boom on a major US city, or anyone who has even considered enjoying Israel or America.

It'd be a shame, but come on people, it's possible. Look at the facts.

Not trying to start a flame war, just presenting my opinion and the facts. Thank you very much.

Regards,
Supershot5000

[walford]

10-8


To varying degrees, the mullahs hold that they are the Almighty's instruments who are charged with the duty to spread the One True Faith. If that means wiping out the majority of the world's population, then so be it. I disagree that they would go so far as guaranteeing the destruction of their nation in pursuit of this goal.In balance, I would say that the risks entailed with destroying Iran's nuke program are far eclipsed by the danger of allowing them to acquire nukes. The varying degrees of fanaticism amongst the mullahs is far too unpredictable to allow them the ability to kill that many people so easily and quickly. Absolutely out of the question.

They must be hit hard if they get close to acquiring nukes, so that other similar regimes will know that they will not secure deterrence with such weapons -- quite the opposite.

Israel is known to use eye for an eye and would be threfore even more likely to return any of Irans nukes with their own. Its true that they would become more brazen in their dislike of Israel, but that would create a more bipolar situation, which I am once again in support of.This carries moral relativism to the extreme. It is akin to advocating a 'bipolar situation' between pathogen and antibody. I do not see a need for balance between intolerant, murderous hatred, wholesale slaughter and the opposite. Governments like the Islamic Republic are cancerous and need to be undermined, not strengthened. This is not a sporting match. It matters which side prevails.


Furthermore, nukes would serve to entrench the current dictatorship's hold on power, thus quelling a growing internal movement toward democratization.Firstly, Iran is not a dictatorship, the power must be given to one man alone before it is a dictatorship. Iran however has various councils. It may Theocratic, but it is not a dictatorship.Then I suppose the USSR was not a dictatorship either? I am using the word 'dictatorship' as a short way of describing a one-party state with absolute, arbitrary power -- token elections (http://www.iranianvoice.org/article1391.html) notwithstanding -- that has no free press, summary executions, kangaroo courts, institutionalized torture, etc. as means to hold itself into power. I don't feel like typing that out every freakin' time. Sue me.

Second, how would them having nukes slow down democratization? I would think it would give the people fear that they would be used on Irans enemies, resulting in the destruction of their country, making them more likly to revolt. Its not like the government will use nukes on its own homeland, that would be an economic disaster.1. No 'revolt' is going to take place so long as the military remains loyal. Every dictatorship that was overthrown via popular revolt succeeded because the generals decided not to obey orders to slaughter civilians [review USSR & Phillippines]. In China, the revolt failed because the PLA remained loyal -- resulting the deaths/imprisonments of tens of thousands. I don't see any evidence that the Iranian military would stand down in the face of a civilian uprising. Do you?
2. In the case of Saddam after Desert Storm, he thought that he was not removed from power because his WMD served as a deterrent. He was wrong (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=26912), but that's beside the point. A tyrannical regime tends to feel more confident and secure if it has the ability to kill millions of enemy civilians in short order, both at home and abroad.

Resources that would otherwise be spent upon conventional weapons deployed for use against outside enemies can instead be used to consolidate power at home. Bear in mind, a dictatorship is essentially a state of war that the government declares upon its own people.

Any cursory review of the Islamic Republic's internal history -- or that of any tyrannical regime for that matter -- certainly shows that to be the case.

[Vorian]

What sort of life did the Iraqis have under Saddam? These offhand comments that imply that 'of course life was better under Saddam' simply carry no weight w/o substantiation.

I can back up my assertions, can you?

Unfortunately I don't speak English well enough to support my statements as good as I would like. What exactly changed with the so called 'freedom' Iraqis now enjoy?

Yes, they can move freely in the streets, but they could be arrested because they look suspicious or be killed by suicide bombers.
They can vote, but can their government decide on anything without US' approval?
They have freedom of speech but many newspapers have closed (as I mentioned in another thread) because they critisized the occupation. And I am not just saying that, those cases have appeared many times in my country's newspapers.

And something about casualties...I didn't say Saddam isn't a murderer. He slaughtered thousands of people. How many innocents have died since the second Gulf war? I know there is no data but they will soon reach the numbers durong Saddam's reign.

I hope I backed up my assertions sufficiently.

[BloodyTalon]

:roll: Am I the only one who knows that North Korea, Iran, and all of the other attention whore nations in the world are just full of ****? If Iran doesn have the bomb (or the ability to make one) it won't matter. They would never use it, and if they did Iran would be turned an irradiated replica of the moon's landscape within 10 minutes.

[SuperShot5000]

:roll: Am I the only one who knows that North Korea, Iran, and all of the other attention whore nations in the world are just full of ****? If Iran doesn have the bomb (or the ability to make one) it won't matter. They would never use it, and if they did Iran would be turned an irradiated replica of the moon's landscape within 10 minutes.

Agreed rofl

[Kilgor]

Why did russia not invade the west during the cold war? Because we could nuke them and vice versa.

The Soviet Union actually did fear MAD, and did want the survival of its population.

However the cult of sucide and mayrterdom in Islamic extremist minds, they just might not care about MAD.

Is it something the civilized world wants to risk ?

[walford]

What exactly changed with the so called 'freedom' Iraqis now enjoy?I will go over Saddam's brutalization later, but his neglect (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=53353&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=61)of housing, medical care, infrastructure, etc. was staggering. This does not get much press, but in many areas, Iraqis are being given clean water, housing, education, medical care etc. the likes of which they have never seen in their entire lives.

Yes, they can move freely in the streets, but they could be arrested because they look suspicious or be killed by suicide bombers.Is there any comparison to the summary arrests, torture and execution of men, women and children under Saddam? And how much freedom of movement is possible when 'insurgents' are spilling blood in their quest to install a terrorist-friendly regime?

They can vote, but can their government decide on anything without US' approval?The amount of influence that the US government has on the Iraqis' constitutional process is not as great as was the case in the post WWII Axis Powers. Remember, the first post-war Japanese Constitution was drafted by outsiders (http://www.indiana.edu/~japan/Digests/const-2.htm) and reworked domestically after the occupation ended.

All the more reason to put an end to the violence so we can bring our troops home and give the Iraqis their country.

There is a necessary de-Ba'athification process. To foster democracy where none had existed before requires effort -- especially under fire. Perhaps we should give the Iraqi people credit for their perseverence rather than wringing our hands in despair. Perhaps the Iraqi people would benefit from some encouragement rather than the woeful cries from the Left.

How long did it take the Western world to develop a truly pluralistic representative government? We're still struggling ourselves.

They have freedom of speech but many newspapers have closed (as I mentioned in another thread) because they critisized the occupation. And I am not just saying that, those cases have appeared many times in my country's newspapers.I haven't seen this before. What form of criticism of the occupation was there? Did it glorify the 'insurgents' as freedom fighters? Was there any recognition that the 'insurgents' are the ones who are perpetuating the occupation by continuing the violence? Did these newspapers provide any fair comparison to the Iraq that the coalition envisions to that of the 'insurgents'?

And something about casualties...I didn't say Saddam isn't a murderer. He slaughtered thousands of people. How many innocents have died since the second Gulf war? I know there is no data but they will soon reach the numbers durong Saddam's reign.We would have a great deal of catching up to do.

In a general sense, all of the grievences that the Islamic/Arab world may have against the West pale in comparison to what they have done/continue to do/plan to do to each other on a regular basis.

Specifically, Saddam is responsible (http://www.neoperspectives.com/farenheight_911.htm) for killing nearly 300,000 of his own people -- at a rate of nearly 20,000/year. If you add the deaths of Muslims due to the 2 wars he started, the figure ranges from 500,000 to one million.

Given that Iraq was a closed society, it is hard to say whether the majority of the killing was stopped before Saddam was removed. Fresh videos of unanesthetized amputations and castrations were found. Numerous Iraqi accounts of systematic torture, rape and imprisonment abound. Are we to say, well, he's killed many of his own people, but he was probably done killing, so the Iraqis would have been better off if we'd left him in power? Remember the prison that American soldiers liberated that held children?

This is not happening any more in Iraq. The majority of the Iraqi people are glad that Saddam is gone. I do not blame the deaths perpetrated by the 'insurgents' upon the United States. I blame the insurgents, those who abet them [Syria, Iran] and the Westerners who continue to give them hope that we will quit with their ad nauseum bleats of 'quagmire.'