Can you fix the US' mistakes?

[WARPIG]

Can you fix it? Many people here have been quite generous in pointing out the way the US has been handling the situation in Iraq. Critique on the way the US was brought into war... who has their hands dirty as far as making Saddam... whether or not terrorists are operating there.. and how the rebuilding is going has been in question by many.
My position has generally been that we seem to be the only ones actively interested. Many countries feel comfortable sharpshooting the US from a distance, while there are a few that have stood with us in the effort. So, what is the right answer? I have always been the type to try and not criticize without an answer, or at least a direction. If the US is doing so badly.. then how would you feel more comfortable? We seem to be a military power that invokes fear. So do we weaken our military? We seem to be though of as a monopoly driven capitalist state. Should we retard our global business? We are said to be a morally unsound country. Should we put only conservatives in power and remit our freedoms? Maybe this is a vague or general question. But, what should we do? Many of you have been forthcoming with the negative points of our country... how would you change it?

[cut]

Dealt with Al-Qaeda first, I think Bush would have if he didn't think his presidency might only last 4 years.

[WARPIG]

Good point.. I think dealing with Al queda should have taken priority. Not quite that simple but I hear ya.

[pinkeye]

Can you fix it? Many people here have been quite generous in pointing out the way the US has been handling the situation in Iraq. Critique on the way the US was brought into war... who has their hands dirty as far as making Saddam... whether or not terrorists are operating there.. and how the rebuilding is going has been in question by many.
My position has generally been that we seem to be the only ones actively interested. Many countries feel comfortable sharpshooting the US from a distance, while there are a few that have stood with us in the effort. So, what is the right answer? I have always been the type to try and not criticize without an answer, or at least a direction. If the US is doing so badly.. then how would you feel more comfortable? We seem to be a military power that invokes fear. So do we weaken our military? We seem to be though of as a monopoly driven capitalist state. Should we retard our global business? We are said to be a morally unsound country. Should we put only conservatives in power and remit our freedoms? Maybe this is a vague or general question. But, what should we do? Many of you have been forthcoming with the negative points of our country... how would you change it?


first of all, it must be pointed out that the american government has some terrific policy anaylsts. these experts in the state department, the cia, etc., voiced concerns about the bush administration's strategy, but cheney, rumsfeld, and others wouldn't hear of this.

problem is politicians rarely listen to the experts, or they bring in their own "experts" whom merely give politicians what they want to hear. all of this has been well documented. do some research and you'll find plenty of credible sources of information. just to make things a little easier for you, here is a q&a with seymour hersh who wrote an excellent article on the bush administration's stovepiping of intelligence:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/content/?031027on_onlineonly01


this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to recent american foreign policy. and let's not even discuss past american adventures in latin and south america, asia, and africa.

you have to understand that the world has a love/hate relationship with americans. the u.s. is a wonderful country. this is a fact. but you are so damn selfish and hypocritical. when was the last time you heard new zealand or bolivia lecture the international community on democracy? bangladesh, a very poor country, frequently deploys its meager military resources through the united nations to help others. it does not directly support oppressive regimes in the middle east, for example. it does not lecture the rest of the world on this and that. it does not invade other countries under false pretenses. the u.s. could learn from bangladesh...

[2Sheds_Jackson]

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."
THEODORE ROOSEVELT
(Paris Sorbonne,1910)

[wholagun]

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."
THEODORE ROOSEVELT
(Paris Sorbonne,1910)

ah one of my favourate quotes :D I would've used it for my sig but its too long and no one would read it.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Better preparation for the aftermath of the Iraq or any other conflict for that matter, more civil affairs staff and military police with good language skills would be a start. Some of the situations in Iraq could have been better dealt with if troops were more culturally aware although I would go as far as blaming the administration for some of the situations that got the troops stressed such as the money changing fiasco.

[WARPIG]

Can you fix it? Many people here have been quite generous in pointing out the way the US has been handling the situation in Iraq. Critique on the way the US was brought into war... who has their hands dirty as far as making Saddam... whether or not terrorists are operating there.. and how the rebuilding is going has been in question by many.
My position has generally been that we seem to be the only ones actively interested. Many countries feel comfortable sharpshooting the US from a distance, while there are a few that have stood with us in the effort. So, what is the right answer? I have always been the type to try and not criticize without an answer, or at least a direction. If the US is doing so badly.. then how would you feel more comfortable? We seem to be a military power that invokes fear. So do we weaken our military? We seem to be though of as a monopoly driven capitalist state. Should we retard our global business? We are said to be a morally unsound country. Should we put only conservatives in power and remit our freedoms? Maybe this is a vague or general question. But, what should we do? Many of you have been forthcoming with the negative points of our country... how would you change it?


first of all, it must be pointed out that the american government has some terrific policy anaylsts. these experts in the state department, the cia, etc., voiced concerns about the bush administration's strategy, but cheney, rumsfeld, and others wouldn't hear of this.

problem is politicians rarely listen to the experts, or they bring in their own "experts" whom merely give politicians what they want to hear. all of this has been well documented. do some research and you'll find plenty of credible sources of information. just to make things a little easier for you, here is a q&a with seymour hersh who wrote an excellent article on the bush administration's stovepiping of intelligence:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/content/?031027on_onlineonly01


this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to recent american foreign policy. and let's not even discuss past american adventures in latin and south america, asia, and africa.

you have to understand that the world has a love/hate relationship with americans. the u.s. is a wonderful country. this is a fact. but you are so damn selfish and hypocritical. when was the last time you heard new zealand or bolivia lecture the international community on democracy? bangladesh, a very poor country, frequently deploys its meager military resources through the united nations to help others. it does not directly support oppressive regimes in the middle east, for example. it does not lecture the rest of the world on this and that. it does not invade other countries under false pretenses. the u.s. could learn from bangladesh...
So we can extract from that.... be like Bangledesh and listen to the experts. Be like Bangledesh because they don't piss anyone off.

[Truthsayer]

I don't know how to solve the future for Iraq.

This is THE problem I have with the invasion of Iraq from the Coalition - I cannot see, and haven't heard, any reasonable solution for the aftermath between the different groups that live there, and the effects it will have in the surrounding countries.

I don't like situations where a clear path cannot be seen.

[WARPIG]

Better preparation for the aftermath of the Iraq or any other conflict for that matter, more civil affairs staff and military police with good language skills would be a start. Some of the situations in Iraq could have been better dealt with if troops were more culturally aware although I would go as far as blaming the administration for some of the situations that got the troops stressed such as the money changing fiasco.

Could it be said that if the US would have had a more viable and wholistic plan for the rebuilding of Iraq.. the rest of the world might have had an opportunity to step up and help? For instance.. again, being facetious.. France may not have been too forthcoming in the combat but if a reasonable vision of rebuild and diplomacy was mapped out.. maybe they would have been less critical and more helpful?

Only thing I see about the rebuild of Iraq is that to plan it out logistically would have shocked everyone with the sheer numbers. MP's have a combat role during these ops..and then putting them into the cleanup crew would be a huge stretch of manpower we don't have. MP's don't have language as a common task. I still think you are right. Keep in mind.. planning this kind of thing out from Washington is kind of naive. The people on the ground in Iraq have been doing what they can to make some form of democracy that will work for all the seperate factions in Iraq. It is fragile at best. As we all know.

[pinkeye]

So we can extract from that.... be like Bangledesh and listen to the experts. Be like Bangledesh because they don't piss anyone off.

sure, it can interpreted this way if one is lazy, ignorant, and/or stupid. i think you are none of these, so i think you can understand what i am trying to say.


warpig, here's an article that offers a view you may or may not accept:

Flashlight on the Potomac
by Kareem Fahim
March 17 - 23, 2004


M. Cherif Bassiouni, the noted international law professor, said in a recent interview that the Bush administration's proposal for reforming the Arab world, called the Greater Middle East Initiative (GMEI), reminded him of an Arab folktale featuring Goha, a mythical character whose misadventures are the basis of popular adages.

In one of these fables, a man on his way home late at night stumbles upon Goha, who is crawling around the ground on his hands and knees, bathed in the glow of a solitary street lamp. The man asks what he's doing. Looking for his watch, Goha replies, and gestures toward the other end of the street, which is pitch black. Puzzled, the man peers down the street, seeing nothing but darkness. "So, why are you looking here?" he asks.

"Because here," Goha replies, "there is light."

Bassiouni laughed. "This initiative was tailored entirely in the 'light' of the Potomac," he said. "But what this administration has lost—namely credibility—is still out there in the dark somewhere. This will be received as demeaning and insulting. It will spend money that will go down the drain. It uses all the wrong people, the wrong means, and the wrong tools. When it fails, people in Washington will just say the Arab world is doomed."

Indeed, in the days after Bassiouni's remarks, press accounts suggested that the GMEI may well have run aground, though the U.S. State Department insists that, for now, the proposal is still afloat. A U.S. official told the Voice they might change the name of the initiative to make it sound friendlier.

But if it is dead, in its short life the plan provoked quite a storm: European diplomats who read the GMEI called it problematic, a fiat that said nothing about the Palestinians. Arab leaders, when they finally found out about it in the Arab press, were furious. And many activists in the region, the "reformers" the initiative was ostensibly meant to help, also found it hard to swallow, for their own reasons.

"The U.S. pressure actually helps and it hurts," said Abdel Monem Said Aly, a prominent Egyptian intellectual. The money that accompanies such initiatives helps. But, he added, "America is giving reform and liberalism a bad name. And it brings the whole American issue into the Egyptian reform debate," he said. "It's not the best time for American liberalism."



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


On the surface, there is little in the GMEI that is outwardly disagreeable. Drawing on the findings of the United Nations Arab Human Development Reports (AHDR), the proposal intends to reduce all sorts of "deficits," especially those in trade, freedom, knowledge, and women's rights. The proposal followed President Bush's ambitious speeches on the region.

"Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe," Bush told a crowd at the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) in November. This was potentially a startling admission, and had the sound of a new doctrine: "In the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty." A U.S. president had repudiated an unending litany of America's crooked deals, interventions, and missteps in the region, rejecting also, maybe, the upkeep of various despots previously called allies.

But "liberty" wasn't the message Bush was sending that day. It was "safety."

A closer read of the GMEI suggests that it was conceived as a security document, not a development road map. "So long as the region's pool of politically and economically disenfranchised individuals grows," read the administration's draft, leaked to the London-based daily Al Hayat, "we will witness an increase in extremism, terrorism, international crime, and illegal migration." The Greater Middle East the president sees, and the one the plan encapsulates, includes the Arab countries, but also Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, and Israel, a vast grouping familiar to American generals, perhaps, but no one else, and certainly not the authors of the AHDR.

It didn't help that the proposal originated in the National Security Council, which imagined a modern-day version of the Helsinki Accords.

"The Helsinki Process was not confined to human rights and political reform," said Abdel Raouf el Reedy, a former Egyptian ambassador to Washington, now living in Cairo. "It actually started with the Eastern European countries asking for confirmation of the political frontiers that had emerged as a result of the Second World War. And that's what we need here. In order to make economic and political reform, we need a healthy regional environment."

Helsinki provided for cooperation between the Warsaw Pact and NATO, a security agreement that guaranteed economic, social, and human rights. Strangely, the GMEI made no mention of the security problems plaguing the Middle East, including the de facto state of war between Israel and many of its neighbors, its occupation of Palestinian land, and the continued U.S. occupation of Iraq. America's allies tried again to deliver the message.

"We believe . . . that any modernization in this region presupposes a peace settlement between the Palestinian and the Israeli people," said French president Jacques Chirac on March 5, with Hosni Mubarak at his side. Chirac called the conflict "the heart of the difficulty," and urged progress in Iraq, saying the two issues were "prerequisites" to reform.

But on this question, the U.S. continues to believe it knows best, maintaining that these conflicts are separable, and that the Arab fixation on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict shows a lack of maturity. Most of the world, including a legion of retired American diplomats, disagrees. This includes Zbigniew Brzezinski, who argued in a March 8 New York Times op-ed piece that without efforts to help the Palestinians, "democracy will seem to many in the Arab world to be window dressing for continued external domination."

For a moment last fall at the NED, President Bush seemed to understand.

"Time after time," he said, "observers have questioned whether this country, or that people, are 'ready' for democracy—as if freedom were a prize you win for meeting our own Western standards of progress."

Sadly though, that is exactly what Bush has asked of the Palestinians. Not only have the results of their last presidential contest—the only transparent Arab election in recent memory—been nullified by the U.S., but self-determination has become, quite literally, contingent on prerequisites demanded by Washington: not a right, but a prize.



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


Professor Bassiouni was a consultant on the pre-war Future of Iraq project, the State Department initiative to rebuild Iraq that was shelved by the Pentagon after the war. Now, the institute he heads at DePaul University has the contract to rebuild the Iraqi legal system. In short, he is no knee-jerk rejectionist of American involvement in the region.

"There might be a silver lining in all this," he said, noting that the U.S. initiative seems to have prodded the Egyptians and the Saudis to create their own rival plan. "The administration should just declare victory, and give up."



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


Additional reporting by Matthew Craft in Cairo.

[Argyll]

Well WARPIG I wouldn't label them as US mistakes,as there are quite a few Nations on the bandwagon,I think the US Armed Forces are doing just fine,it's a very different ype of warfare and it was a steep learning curve,overall I'd be happy with a B+ with room for improvement ;)

[Miles Teg]

Finish the work in Irak (Install government, maintain peacekeeping, try to fight against resistance byt ideologic way)

Put less money on regular army but more money on Special Forces and intelligence.

Try to help much countries as possible to solve problems which help terrorist to push on them and there ideology. (We can observe the effect of request and demand, extremism come only if people need it)

Keep refusing to deal with terrorist.

Keep justice, don't commit atrocities against terrorist, this would be playing there game.

[WARPIG]

I can agree to many of the points in the articles you posted pinkeye. Much of it seemed to focus on details and not the big picture. I don't see a viable solution coming from Washington.. but a start. Starting "in the light" and having a plan to move into the unknown is at least..action. Criticising from apathy is inaction and unhelpful. I can see that the US is seemingly trying to fit a round peg into a square hole. But, you cannot dismiss a solution until you have tried it. A series of failures is at least activly attempting to do something. Maybe Chirac has a point.. and maybe he is dead right.. what kind of credibility do you think he gets from the US? It has been shown that France is just as dirty as the US has been when it comes to dealing with Saddam. What is the solution though pinkeye? Apathy? Indifference? You continue with your generous portions of criticism.. how about a little bit of contribution? US soldiers are the only mouthpiece that the Iraqi's have to speak to Washington. What can they tell us? What have they been telling us?

[WARPIG]

sure, it can interpreted this way if one is lazy, ignorant, and/or stupid. i think you are none of these, so i think you can understand what i am trying to say.

Thank you for the faux vote of confidence. I do however reserve the right to say something stupid at my convenience. ;)

[IsdatU]

I don't know how to solve the future for Iraq.

This is THE problem I have with the invasion of Iraq from the Coalition - I cannot see, and haven't heard, any reasonable solution for the aftermath between the different groups that live there, and the effects it will have in the surrounding countries.

I don't like situations where a clear path cannot be seen.

Iraq is a creation of the British empire, an artificial construct. It was only being held together by ruthless dictators.

When the US and its allies leave, there will be civil war against the Iraqi state and between the factions there.

IMO, We should allow Iraq to split up between the distinct peoples in the region. The Kurds are a nation, they should have a state of their own.

From a security standpoint, I think it is better to have a bunch of smaller states that we can play against each other rather than to have one large state that could grow into a regional power.

[von_Moo142]

My position has generally been that we seem to be the only ones actively interested.

In what?

Nearly every nation on earth supports the "war against terror" in one way or another. To the best of my knowledge, all European nations are directly supporting this "war".

The war in Iraq is not directly linked to this, and if other countries don't want to get involved then thats up to them. It might not be the best thing for them to do, but its just how things work.



So do we weaken our military?

Well, maybe the an answer to this is to strengthen your military?

Not so much in the sense of getting more/better equipment, but more in the sense of getting more/better experience. Having troops in Iraq can help with this, as a broad selection of soldiers get stuff like MOUT training (and practical experience). And, if the US military can adapt (which it hasn't always done so well in the past, but thats another story) as an organisation, a better approach to things like COIN ops can be introduced.




Should we put only conservatives in power and remit our freedoms?

Well thats up to you guys :-)

But I wouldn't, as your freedom are important.

And if the USA wants to be constructivly involved in fighting global terrorism, then good diplomacy is essential. Your current administration is a bit of a mixed bag on this front, IMO, Colin Powel is good whilst Rumsfield and Bush tend to make more foul ups. Of course, whats good for foriegn relations isn't necessarily good for internal politics...


See this BBC News story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3522032.stm

What doesnt' really work for you is the statements by the leader of the house, Hastert, and Gen. Myers. If the US wants the Spanish troops to stay in Iraq then the Spanish people, it would seem, need to belive that its the right thing for them to do. Implying that they are appeasing terrorists may not be the best way to win them round, even if it might be what the American people want to hear.




We seem to be though of as a monopoly driven capitalist state. Should we retard our global business?

Whilst America may well benifit from stricter anti-monopoly laws, its up to the consumer at the end of the day. We all have a choice whether we eat at Mc Donalds. I choose not to myself, but thats more to do with the food being rubbish than the company being a bastion of American imperialism ;-)

[Haiw]

I don't know how to solve the future for Iraq.

This is THE problem I have with the invasion of Iraq from the Coalition - I cannot see, and haven't heard, any reasonable solution for the aftermath between the different groups that live there, and the effects it will have in the surrounding countries.

I don't like situations where a clear path cannot be seen.

Iraq is a creation of the British empire, an artificial construct. It was only being held together by ruthless dictators.

When the US and its allies leave, there will be civil war against the Iraqi state and between the factions there.

IMO, We should allow Iraq to split up between the distinct peoples in the region. The Kurds are a nation, they should have a state of their own.

From a security standpoint, I think it is better to have a bunch of smaller states that we can play against each other rather than to have one large state that could grow into a regional power.
Making a Kurdish state. Hey, brilliant plan! Are you the one who's gonna ask the Turks and the Iranians if they wanna give a piece of their land for Kurdistan?

Oh and suuuuure...multiple states that we can play against each other... yeah, so basically...make it a hotspot with wars for the coming future. Damn ****ing brilliant Einstein!

Oh and BTW...have you considered that splitting it up will pretty sure mean you'll get another Islam state. I thought you were allergic to those?

[usa320]

I dont think weve made any major mistakes in recent history, other than the mistake that let hijackers get on planes with knives. But in post 9-11 world, weve done everything we should have. With Saddam Hussein and his sons no longer a problem, Libya surrendering its arms, and Osama and Zwahiri about to be ****ed, this world is far safer.

[WARPIG]

I dont think weve made any major mistakes in recent history, other than the mistake that let hijackers get on planes with knives. But in post 9-11 world, weve done everything we should have. With Saddam Hussein and his sons no longer a problem, Libya surrendering its arms, and Osama and Zwahiri about to be f***, this world is far safer.
Kind of naive but I feel you. I don't see the US as a great evil as many do. I don't even see the US as this big, arrogant, bully as many do. But we are definately not without fault. My challange in this thread, is to voice a solution. So far... more complaints have been added. Some advice on how to better use our troops, critique of my questions, splitting the 3 parties, and the wisdom of indifference have been contributed. Who can paint us a picture of some viable alternatives? Maybe some unrealistic ones even. For instance could another country have a better chance than the US at diplomacy? Pretend that your country has been hired by the US as a consultant. What would you tell the US? "Build them McDonalds, and Starbucks?" The suggestion, although coming under violent criticism, is the closest any one has come to answering my challange.

[Truthsayer]

A kurdish state will never be allowed.

Turkey is a member of NATO and considers all kurds as terrorists.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Iraq is a creation of the British empire, an artificial construct. It was only being held together by ruthless dictators.

This is an interesting point. How long can an artificial nation remain as a viable construct? Several recent wars have been due to the fact that partitioned areas split apart - Vietnam (was partitioned North / South), Korea (same), Israel (area was laid out, Arabs attacked, been going back & forth ever since), Pakistan was partitioned for Muslims from India etc. Also the same goes for USSR which split apart after the strong central gov't collapsed.

So we're left with the question- though a unified Iraq would be politically preferable - so that it's neighbors would be more at ease - is it truly a realistic goal? Can it be made to endure?

The current model has a chance to work - seeing as how the various "states" would have pretty decent self-rule. Obviously the terrorists there believe it has a chance to work - why else devote so much effort to stopping it.

But I'd say that Iraq will need a very robust central government / security apparatus in place to keep order, at least in the short term.

Could things have been done better? Difficult to say - we were not working from a clean slate. There was the UN endlessly delaying, all the recipients of the corrupt oil for food program throwing up roadblocks, all these things took time, which of course gives the enemy an advantage. Who attacks with months of advance warning? Well we did, and still kicked major ass.

It's an inherently chaotic situation being judged in the short term. How long did terrorist attacks from the werewolves in Germany continue after WWII? How long did that reconstruction take? It got done. This will get done too.

[Argyll]

It's an inherently chaotic situation being judged in the short term. How long did terrorist attacks from the werewolves in Germany continue after WWII? How long did that reconstruction take? It got done. This will get done too.

Well the IRA started their campaign of terror in 1916 against the crown,and it continued for 80 years!!

[martinexsquaddie]

well maybe question backing the leaders of the stans Uzbeckistan and others none of them you'd invite to dinner and the chances of them lasting too long isn't good :(
maybe do something serious about free trade. developing countries are naughty if they put up tariffs but its fine to give massive subsides to farmers the eu IS A GULITY AS SIN OVER THIS AS WELL :(

[mrfloppy]

The questions that you are asking, Warpig, should have been asked before the Invasion in Iraq, because now it is a bit too late to come up with alternatives let alone turning back the time.

I fear, no one has a solution at hand. Perhaps the US learns its lessons for the future and takes into account next time, that they may be dealing with a different culture and society, when they occupy a country (no matter for what reason). Now we have to deal with the problem, that democracy is something that can't be imposed upon a society within a limited timescale and that it is even more difficult to do so when you're dealing with a muslim society. The (shiite) majority in Iraq seems to prefer a system that incorporates Shariah - which is not compatible with western standards. This problem should have been realised before the war, because it inevitably means that you either have to stay in Iraq for decades ,to reeducate the people, or you leave the country and let them have their will. And there's many more problems to solve.

Some members of the US-government seem to have believed (or at least wanted the public to believe) that things might be as easy as they were in Germany and Japan after WWII, but the premises in the latter two countries were a bit different. For instance, in Germany, there still have been some people who remembered how a democracy was working and Germany as well as Japan consisted of a homogeneous society instead of a multi-ethnic one, like in Iraq.

2Sheds_Jackson wrote:
How long did terrorist attacks from the werewolves in Germany continue after WWII?
Those attacks practically never threatened the allied forces. The "werewolves" were founded in October 1944 to carry on the fight, but never accomplished anything that would be worth mentioning. I know, members of the US-government used their name to compare the post-war situations of Germany and Iraq, but this was an inaccurate comparison.

[haze99]

Some what of topic, many people feel that the USA is being imperialistic. But, I would say that is not the case, the US has had a good track record in its past conflicts.

Some places for your consideration, Grenada is doing well. Panama is sovreign and has control of their Canal. Kuwait has been prosperous for the last 13 years.
Let's go WAY back, West Germany (now Germany) Italy and Japan. Their are also independant and well off. South Korea too. (yes, we have a huge presence there.) North Korea isn't your friendly neighbor either.
As for Iraq, say we did not attack. How would anyone be better off otherwise. And say the US was attacked again. Then there would be inquires into WHY we didn't attack Iraq in the first place!
Operation Iraqi Freedom is quite a mixed bag. We are there now, as is our Allies, I will name a few, UK, NL, Polaska, Baltic countries, CIS states, like Azeribijan and many others. Let the troops on the ground determine what is needed and how to fix the problems.
All those on the sidelines, can keep watching!

[Tane Angle]

In answer to the title question here, I can't. I don't have the answers. And it worries me quite a lot sometimes.

I think we need a military at least twice it's current size. I think we need pay and benefits twice what they are now. And yeah, that requires taxes at least what they were three years ago.

I think we need to reinstate the 15 billion dollars that President Bush promised but never coughed up for fighting AIDS in Africa. I think we need to improve our cultural awareness and language skills. It'd probably be a good idea to up rewards money. We need to turn the Iraqi people against the insurgents/terrorists/whoever. That won't happen by kicking in a family's door every other night.

Also, I think we need to subsidize clean fuels and make all possible efforts to stem the Greenhouse Effect. Doesn't matter if we stop terrorism in the Middle East if Europe will be engulfed in a war over heating oil in 30 years caused by global warming. I think we need to begin a test "clean city" within five years, and I think we need to convert the entire country to clean fuel within the next five decades. But we need to start today, as these things take half a century to complete.

Things like that-what will be the cause of the wars in the coming decades and centuries? What can we do to stop them? Some people think the environment is a backseat issue to the military. I think defending the atmosphere defends our people and our nation. I think scientists and soldiers have the same goal, just mostly one thinks long term, one thinks short term.

Some would say that such problems are not our concern, but the next generations. Our younger members here are the next generation, the one with the power to either save or destroy the species. And the older folks like XASA, 11FS5, and myself, among others, are the ones who vote in record numbers usually, right? I'm hoping this younger generation will get the job done well.

Have a good one all, and as always, just some thoughts...

[Haiw]

In answer to the title question here, I can't. I don't have the answers. And it worries me quite a lot sometimes.

I think we need a military at least twice it's current size. I think we need pay and benefits twice what they are now. And yeah, that requires taxes at least what they were three years ago.

I think we need to reinstate the 15 billion dollars that President Bush promised but never coughed up for fighting AIDS in Africa. I think we need to improve our cultural awareness and language skills. It'd probably be a good idea to up rewards money. We need to turn the Iraqi people against the insurgents/terrorists/whoever. That won't happen by kicking in a family's door every other night.

Also, I think we need to subsidize clean fuels and make all possible efforts to stem the Greenhouse Effect. Doesn't matter if we stop terrorism in the Middle East if Europe will be engulfed in a war over heating oil in 30 years caused by global warming. I think we need to begin a test "clean city" within five years, and I think we need to convert the entire country to clean fuel within the next five decades. But we need to start today, as these things take half a century to complete.

Things like that-what will be the cause of the wars in the coming decades and centuries? What can we do to stop them? Some people think the environment is a backseat issue to the military. I think defending the atmosphere defends our people and our nation. I think scientists and soldiers have the same goal, just mostly one thinks long term, one thinks short term.

Some would say that such problems are not our concern, but the next generations. Our younger members here are the next generation, the one with the power to either save or destroy the species. And the older folks like XASA, 11FS5, and myself, among others, are the ones who vote in record numbers usually, right? I'm hoping this younger generation will get the job done well.

Have a good one all, and as always, just some thoughts...
Good points. I also gotta agree with haze99; it would be a fair call before the whole Iraq bussiness. Now that the US has started in Iraq I'm afraid they just set a train in motion they can't stop or avert...only the future will teach us where it's heading.

Also gotta agree with Tane Angle on the 'bigger picture'. IMO this is also where Bush has miserably failed; right now he's busy bankrupting the US (but hey, since the effects of that won't be seen for some time it'll propably happen when there's a democrat president who gets the blame), and so far he's only winning the war on terror on a tactical level; on the strategic level he's pretty much losing it. International terrorism only seems to go in an upward spiral instead of a downward one. He's alienating himself from his alies, and if he keeps this up one day the US might wake up finding itself out of friends, wondering how it ever got to that.

Hopefully it won't get that bad, but with the way Bush has been running the country that's pretty much the direction it went. So basically what should be done is: try and fight the war on terrorism on a more strategic form (preventing terrorism, instead of slashing off heads that grow back in twofold), screw the tax cuts and avert a future economic crisis of the US & last but not least, a 'more sensitive' approach to the rest of the world. Alienating yourself of your allies never did anyone any good.

Oh and talking about future generations; how are things with the upcoming wedding? :D

[SaNdMaN]

If I may so bold as to offer my humble $0.02 US...

Iraq is a complete success...If you look at it from the not so noble perspective of the typical US politician...

9/11 happened, and the later fallout created huge slumps in Bush's favor ratings...There were some glaring missteps in the US intelligence community exposed...What would happen if another 9/11 happened? Bush would probably have been broiled alive...

So the Bush administration did something that would prevent another 9/11...They persuaded the American public and a pretty decent portion of the international community to put the thump on Iraq's infamous dictator, who was already easy to villify...

Moral ethical and right? Maybe not...Smart? Very much

It is alot easier to fight off the fallout from Iraq than it would be to explain another 9/11...The Bush administration, by occupying Iraq, moved the focal point of terrorism from US soil to a foriegn country, and a disliked foreign country at that...

I don't hate Iraqi's, I don't hate Muslims...But I'll tell you what, I don't have alot of compassion for very many standing governments in the middle east right now...

[Kilgor]

I dont think you can even judge iraq now ?

how long did it take to rebuild Japan and germany ?

[Truthsayer]

Sandman>> What has Iraq to do with an second 9/11??

[SaNdMaN]

Absolutely nothing...Other than the fact that Bush used the country as a scapegoat, and a convenient place to reposition the terrorists focus...Reread the post and pay closer attention to what it says...

Trust me, I think that Iraq was pretty far down my list of threats...But, it is currently politically impossible to eliminate the biggest terrorist threats the world faces...

[Tane Angle]

:D Thanks for asking, Haiw. Things are going great with them. I'm trying to stay out of the way, but be helpful at the same time. When my wife and I were married, it seemed a bit more calm. :D By the way, have you ever seen Fantasia? You know that part where Mickey Mouse is cutting up broomsticks, and they just grow in number as they shrink in size?

Kilgor, it took about two decades for reconstruction to be completed. Some major differences are that there weren't too many attacks on the occupying forces, and the nations themselves were relatively homeogeneous with national identities.

And I can see the point that it's a bit of a smokescreen and a scapegoat. It shouldn't be done, but it is.

And yes, like it or not, we're stuck in Iraq for a good while. :( Have a good one all, and just some thoughts...

[M1A2U2]

Sometimes I wonder what would happen If the US took all its forces out of the world and brought them back home. I wonder what would happen and what Europe would do now that the US is gone. Many countries would probably be overun and Europe would be straining to try and keep the world stable. If Russia invaded Europe and the US refused to respond what do you think Europe would say to the US?

[Haiw]

Sometimes I wonder what would happen If the US took all its forces out of the world and brought them back home. I wonder what would happen and what Europe would do now that the US is gone. Many countries would probably be overun and Europe would be straining to try and keep the world stable. If Russia invaded Europe and the US refused to respond what do you think Europe would say to the US?
Dude... the cold war's OVER. And right now Russia ain't invading jack ****!

Can't say I've seen the Fantasia, but I get the picture. Sometimes I wonder how our history books will look in 50 years... :|

[Trigger]

Sometimes I wonder how our history books will look in 50 years... :|
You mean after the revisionist historians finish re-writing them to place the blame for the entire world's woes squarely on the shoulders of G.W. Bush and his administration? I mean it's only been 3 years and some of you seem to blame everything from terrorism to global warming on him. How low is his IQ again? In three years he's somehow alienated 'all of our allies'? Oh, yeah: 'Screw the taxcut'? I like how you spend other people's money there Haiw :roll:

Get a job, earn some money and tell me how good it feels to actually keep most of it before you tell me I'm not entitled to mine.

[Haiw]

Sometimes I wonder how our history books will look in 50 years... :|
You mean after the revisionist historians finish re-writing them to place the blame for the entire world's woes squarely on the shoulders of G.W. Bush and his administration? I mean it's only been 3 years and some of you seem to blame everything from terrorism to global warming on him. How low is his IQ again? In three years he's somehow alienated 'all of our allies'? Oh, yeah: 'Screw the taxcut'? I like how you spend other people's money there Haiw :roll:

Get a job, earn some money and tell me how good it feels to actually keep most of it before you tell me I'm not entitled to mine.
I'm not trying to blame it all on Bush, I'm just not so sure whether some of his decisions will not bite him in the ass someday, and what future will bring.
Besides he HAS alienated lots of his allies... Relationships in the middle east (apart from Iraq) and Pakistan are worse than ever, relationships with Europe are at an all-time-lowest, and apart from Liberia Africa has been left aside to rot (yeah I know, we Euros are guilty of that as well), and the world opinion about the US has definately dropped in the last few years.

And about tax cuts; what..the..****..are...you...yanks..whining...about... DAMNIT. You already have some of the lowest taxes in the world and still you're whining. Greedy bastards. Maybe you haven't noticed, but Bush's financial management hasn't been exactely top-notch as of late. Under 'the hated Clinton' the national budget was in the + (more income than outgoing). As of now, Bush has already managed to get in down to a - (takes quite a lot to get a + changed into a - on a national budget). Now he still wants to keep fighting the war...while he's already got the budget in the negatives, and yet he still even wants to squeeze in a tax cut. Maybe you never had any economics, but it doesn't take a genius to conclude that it JUST DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY.
But maybe you would appreciate a new Marshall plan where the Europeans help out the Americans?

[csqnsas]

Why should any 'country' "fix" the mistakes made by the United States of America and its politicians policy?

I fully support the troops and all servimg 100%, fully supported the Afganistan conflict but the Iraq War was an attack on a sovereign state.

At least GW 1 was legal.

The politicians of the U.S.A and the U.K used basic human fear of the WMD and lied to all of us .

Now its the troops on the ground suffering. AS well as those who have family serving, know of friends serving or perhaps are vets.

Do you really think that Dr Smith in CA or MR Jones in MA or Fred Brown driving his kids to school in his V8 SUV gas guzzler in FL or the same people in the UK/Poland/Italy etc... really gives a dam* aabout those serving out there .

I don't think so

The USA's and the UK's policy was wrong and we ( and those who serve-and I am in my 24th year -done the Falklands, GW1 and 3 tours in Bosnia)are going to be paying the price for years to come.

[Trigger]

Haiw wrote:

As of now, Bush has already managed to get in down to a - (takes quite a lot to get a + changed into a - on a national budget). Now he still wants to keep fighting the war...while he's already got the budget in the negatives, and yet he still even wants to squeeze in a tax cut. Maybe you never had any economics, but it doesn't take a genius to conclude that it JUST DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY.
Maybe you never looked at a calendar before, but this kind of stuff doesn't happen overnight. Show me some stats professor.

csqnsas wrote:

Why should any 'country' "fix" the mistakes made by the United States of America and its politicians policy?
The question/topic of the thread is in reference to the constant whining about U.S. policy without offering any kind of solution.


The politicians of the U.S.A and the U.K used basic human fear of the WMD
Escalating terrorist attacks and countries run by unstable dictators with a history of mass murder and the rapidly developing capability to produce WMDs will put that kind of fear in you.

[Haiw]

(ah finally found the words; it's budget surplus and deficit, so what I was saying, Bush managed to turn a budget surplus into a deficit)

Okay... history:

-Clinton announcing a budget surplus in 2000 for at least $230 billion..the largest in US history.
http://edition.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/

-An article from some site I don't know, but it seems pretty well researched. Basically it says Bush is the biggest spending president in decades.
www.cato.org/research/articles/edwards-030206.html

-Article about bad times ahead with current line of increasing US budget deficit:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3430405.stm

-Article of a warning to Bush by Greenspan...also note the neat graph showing budget deficits and surpluses over the years.
http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/25/news/economy/greenspan/

-Article about an IMF report saying that the US deficits even threaten the world economy...
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/07/politics/07CND-FUND.html?ex=1079845200&en=2f928d3e883dd5a4&ei=5070

I could dig up some more, but this should be enough...basically, Bush managed to turn a budget surplus into a budget deficit, wants to increase spending on for example the military, and wants to keep fighting wars, and yet at the same time wants to cut taxes.

[RomanS]

what mistakes?

[George W. Bush]

You are forgetting that Clinton rode the tech bubble and as he left we had an economic recession that Bush inherited.

[RomanS]

why does Europe worries about US too much? Don't they have a crap load of their own problems to solve, instead of criticizing US?

[Haiw]

why does Europe worries about US too much? Don't they have a crap load of their own problems to solve, instead of criticizing US?
That's why I put in the last link... basically, if the US bleeds, the rest of the world gets blood on them.

[Trigger]

A few lines from the last article Haiw posted:

Greenspan said the deficit spending of recent years has helped the economy recover from the 2001 recession, and some economists don't think the deficit is a short-term problem for the economy.

...the economy seems to have gathered strength and that "prospects for sustaining the expansion" are good.

...Overall, the economy has lately made impressive gains in output and real incomes...

[Haiw]

A few lines from the last article Haiw posted:

Greenspan said the deficit spending of recent years has helped the economy recover from the 2001 recession, and some economists don't think the deficit is a short-term problem for the economy.

...the economy seems to have gathered strength and that "prospects for sustaining the expansion" are good.

...Overall, the economy has lately made impressive gains in output and real incomes...
They don't think it's a short-term problem. Anyway, deficits are still rising, and economy just won't keep keep going too well if deficits stay up. Besides, even WHEN economy is getting better right now, it still doesn't change much about the sad state of the US' budgetarry affairs. Also, a country in big budgetarry problems never seems to run all too well (Germany post WW1 ring a bell?).

[csqnsas]

Trigger,

I am not getting into a FLAME war but "how come the USA never fixed the UK/ N. Ireland problem, or the Indian/tamil tiger problem , or the Russian/Chechna problem?

because:......

1. They never started it. Period.

I do not agree with all the Asshol*s hitting on the USA for the ongoing problems. Only see them as a problem for the future.

You President and his backers ( including Blair BTW) thought that the war was just, got a few gits to agree and off we all went. Now we ( My friends and your servicemen pay the price. )

How many must die for his folly?

[RomanS]

Well stop being dependent on USA, try to live without USA's help.
Can you?

If evil Russia invades you, or arabs blow you up for not converting to Islam -who will you call for help?

A.Ghostbusters

B.Arabs

C.USA

[csqnsas]

Sorry

His and their folly.

without a common agreement Pres Bush might not have gone into Iraq.

OK - He probably would have but I will give the benifit to you?

[Haiw]

Oh and BTW, just reread the article...nice job of selective copy&pasting. p-)


Greenspan said the deficit spending of recent years has helped the economy recover from the 2001 recession, and some economists don't think the deficit is a short-term problem for the economy.

But Greenspan and other economists have warned that, over time, persistent deficits and high government debt will push interest rates higher, hurting economic growth and the nation's living standards.

(...)
...the economy seems to have gathered strength and that "prospects for sustaining the expansion" are good. Still, he was not particularly bullish about job growth, which has long been a glaring weak spot in an otherwise healthy economy.

...Overall, the economy has lately made impressive gains in output and real incomes...although progress in creating jobs has been limited," he said.

[Trigger]

No flaming here either csqnsas, I was just responding.

as far as folly...only time will tell. I don't enjoy seeing anyone's sons or daughters die either, but I think I would have to pull my hair out if we didn't act pre-emptively and some major city took a big (WMD) hit because we appeared unwilling to act.

[Trigger]

Haiw wrote:

Oh and BTW, just reread the article...nice job of selective copy&pasting.
The lines I pasted refer to short term statistics. Bush only has 4 and possibly 8 years in office. I consider that 'short term'.

It's easy to be selective in what you look for isn't it. The Bush-bashers do it all the time. But that's OK, he's the Anti-Christ, right?

[Haiw]

Haiw wrote:

Oh and BTW, just reread the article...nice job of selective copy&pasting.
The lines I pasted refer to short term statistics. Bush only has 4 and possibly 8 years in office. I consider that 'short term'.

It's easy to be selective in what you look for isn't it. The Bush-bashers do it all the time. But that's OK, he's the Anti-Christ, right?
I don't say he's the anti-Christ, but so far he's doing a pretty good job of screwing up your budget. Besides, the 500 billion budget deficit didn't even include lots of extra costs for the war in Iraq and such...

Short-term is open-for debate, but what the article basically says, is that the economy might have some good couple of years ahead, but if he keeps running the national budget the way he does it now, the economy won't fare so well. What do you prefer? 4 (or 8) years of joy & 20 years of crap, or just 'normal' all the time?

[Trigger]

'normal' is a relative term. ;)

[2Sheds_Jackson]

From what I've read, the current deficit is not a record amount as a function of GNP/GDP (can't remember which). Thus, yeah it's a lot in absolute terms, but not as horrible as it may at first seem.

It's easy to sit around complaining & making half baked statements when there's nothing at stake.

Is this the worst that can be said about Bush? That his administration has made decisions that you don't agree with (but which others do)? Where are all the scandals? The mass- resignations, the dismissals due to incompetence, impeachments, lack of "controlling authority", Chinese money in the till, suicides of administration officials, people going to jail? This is boring stuff, people.

Hey, Clinton had it easy. He inherited a growing economy from Bush 41, rode a massive wave of record prosperity fueled by illegal bookkeeping & non-sustainable expectations of the Internet, and did his best to keep his head down on foreign policy matters.

Along comes Bush who winds up with a falling economy, a market in serious decline, revelations of cooked books with billions lost, a massive attack by terrorists emboldened by years of US ineptitude, and the admission by Iraq that they had WMDs but they promise they got rid of them but can't seem to find the paperwork. What's a guy to do? Anybody out there have all the answers? That's a pretty full plate. I think he's done all right with the situation he was given.

[Argyll]

Well stop being dependent on USA, try to live without USA's help.
Can you?

If evil Russia invades you, or arabs blow you up for not converting to Islam -who will you call for help?

A.Ghostbusters

B.Arabs

C.USA


Would Russia survive without Aid from the G7 countries Permski?

[RomanS]

we have potatoes and vodka

we will survive anywhere

[Argyll]

we have potatoes and vodka

we will survive anywhere


All hail the potatoe............one of lifes wonders woot ;)

[BlackRain]

we have potatoes and vodka

we will survive anywhere

As a product of the USA, born in the 1960's, and brought up to believe in the Red Menance, and a military college graduate, I give the Russian's alot of credit and believe they are hardy enough of a people to survive just about anything.

The funny thing is most military men respect the Russians alot more than some of our allies.

[RomanS]

Russians and AMericans have a lot of respect for each other.

When I took my American friends to Russia, all the military personel they met said the same thing .

USA and RUSSIA together can rule the planet.

[Argyll]

Russians and AMericans have a lot of respect for each other.

When I took my American friends to Russia, all the military personel they met said the same thing .

USA and RUSSIA together can rule the planet.

It wasn't like this 15 years ago tho ;)

[RomanS]

no it wasnt

it was a cold war in effect.

The places my friends visited, even 10 years ago would be impossible to think about.

Including cty of Izhevsk (and the weapon plants)

the secret chamber in Moscow (Undo you remember hehehe)

[Argyll]

Just how effective is the Baltic fleet these days,I seen some really sad pics of the fleet tied up and starting to look pretty grubby,the ships which were once so gracefull now rusting in docks :(

I had a penchant for the Sovernmenny class cruiser.......beautiful lines :D

[UkrainianAmerican]

Russians and AMericans have a lot of respect for each other.

When I took my American friends to Russia, all the military personel they met said the same thing .

USA and RUSSIA together can rule the planet.

It wasn't like this 15 years ago tho ;)
On the flipside it wasn't that bad. I mean I heard of a lot of american tourists in St.Petersbug and Moscow. And none of them were getting attacked, abused, spit upon, or disrespected in anyway.
(I wouldnt be so sure if they went to Hirachi, or Cairo)
edit
Btw I know this for a fact.
My physics teacher (Italian-American) last year, told me how he and his wife went to moscow in the mid-eightees, and how warm the people were in restaurants and museums.
2nd edit
O, and he also was in Uzbekistan and he said that he like the food, hehe.

[Argyll]

Russians and AMericans have a lot of respect for each other.

When I took my American friends to Russia, all the military personel they met said the same thing .

USA and RUSSIA together can rule the planet.

It wasn't like this 15 years ago tho ;)
On the flipside it wasn't that bad. I mean I heard of a lot of american tourists in St.Petersbug and Moscow. And none of them were getting attacked, abused, spit upon, or disrespected in anyway.
(I wouldnt be so sure if they went to Hirachi, or Cairo)

aye too right,and they might get the same treatment in Glasgow as well ;)

[UkrainianAmerican]

Russians and AMericans have a lot of respect for each other.

When I took my American friends to Russia, all the military personel they met said the same thing .

USA and RUSSIA together can rule the planet.

It wasn't like this 15 years ago tho ;)
On the flipside it wasn't that bad. I mean I heard of a lot of american tourists in St.Petersbug and Moscow. And none of them were getting attacked, abused, spit upon, or disrespected in anyway.
(I wouldnt be so sure if they went to Hirachi, or Cairo)

aye too right,and they might get the same treatment in Glasgow as well ;)
rofl
*crossing out Glasgow from a list of possible future destinations*

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

*crossing out Glasgow from a list of possible future destinations*
Your missing out on a lot of culture, but if you do visit and feel the want to go out and meet the locals remember to double knot your boot laces (don't want them coming undone when your running) and print your blood type on the back of your underpants. :D

Naw only kidding Glasgows smiles better :D its a good night out.

[Kitsune]

@ Permskii:

Only too bad that the Americans do not want to share the planet with the Russians. And nobody wants to ne ruled by Russians either.
Just stay in Russia. It is big enough as it is.
And behave.


"Fixing" the American mistakes:

I do not think there is an easy solution to the problem. But I think the best way is this:
First one has to understand, that terroism is the result not of misery...the terrorists are more well off Saudis than poor Syrians...it is the result of a feeling of humiliation. The Near East countries are quite backward, but they possess oil and are therefore under the constant scrutiny and influence of the west. This is the reason for the frustration the likes of Osama bin Laden feel (he himself started to target the Americans, because of the American troops stationed in Saudi Arabia after Gulf War I): the Saudi Regime for example is oppressive and decadent, but has long been supported by the West. Egypt and Jordan are both supported by the US...if the will of the Egytian people would count, the present regime would be gone in no time.
This frustration lets the people of the near eastern countries search for a own identity, this was first arab nationalism. But after the sixs day war the Arab nationalism was at an untimely end...and the Arabs feeled humiliated even more.
So they turned more and more to Islam, which became more and more radical.

What to do about it? I think the best is: Let them! Let the people in Iraq make a free election. One man, one vote. The result will be a islamistic state. Let them! And withdraw. Withdraw also support for Egypt, slowly. Let them vote and there will be a islamic Egypt. Let them!
Saudi Arabia is a bit more difficult, because of the oil...but do not artificially stabilize the regime.

Now you say: "You are crazy Kitsune!" No argument there ;) but I say, look at Iran: there was a emotion ridden revolution (and the US was powerless to stop it) they created a radical muslim fundamentalistic state...and now 25 years later, look at it! The Iranians have become moderate. There preachers and Imams are sometimes even spit on, in the streets. The people of Iran have realized, that this Islamic state wasn't the answer to all problems.
And the same will happen everywhere else, sooner or later.

What about Israel? Cut your support ! Not all of it, but enough to pressure them into accepting a viable palestinian state. They will whine, let them. They will get used to it. Help them to build this barrier between the palestinian state and Israel, and then watch what the Palestinians do in their state...soon they will have enough to do struggle for power among themselves and there will be less and less time for suicide bombers.

This will not solve the problem of islamistic fundamentalism overnight. But it could starten a process that, within time, withdraws the source from which it is fueled. The current policy of the US and Israel is to use force and more force. Your troops are entangled in wars of attrition and the fans of hate are fanned. So it gets worse and worse.

Not that I believe, that anyone would heed this advice. But see for yourself what will happen.

:(

[Pille1234]

Interesting ideas Kitsune, but you missed one important thing: we (the west) have serious interests in that region. We need their oil, we want their oil and we want it cheap, without supply risk. What if Iraq AND Saudi Arabia become instable islamic countries at the same time? This would result in veeeeeery high oil prices and could hurt the western economy in a fatal way.
A stable, pro western iraq would make us less dependent of Saudi Arabia and would allow us to stop the interference with the decadent Al Saud criminals. (Which is i believe the real reason for OIF, but that's another topic)

[Tane Angle]

Well, that's just one more reason to switch to clean fuels.

[Kitsune]

1) They need our money as badly as we need their oil.

2) You will not get a "stable, democratic, pro western Iraq". You cannot mold human minds to your wishes. If you could, you have already messed it up. It is true: Most Iraqis today are glad that Saddam is gone. But it is also true that nearly every Iraqi dislikes the Americans now and feels that they have overstayed their welcome.

You can have:

a) a minority regime. It can be pro US, yes. But it will not be democratic or stable. People will feel humiliated and opressed by it, and will turn to terrorism as a result.

b) a true democratic regime. But this will not be pro US, but islamist. It will behave neutrally towards the West.

c) a civil war. If you REALLY mess things up. And where the situation in Iraq is heading now. And it will most likely end in a radical anti western Islamistic regime

[BlackRain]

I hope in my children's lifetime we can forget the middle east completely.

Hopefully, in the near future, US research will perfect hydrogen fuel cells or alternative fuel sources for cars and trucks. Ford has already announced a new small SUV (Escape Hybrid) for 2005 that is a hybrid (electric/gas) to improve fuel economy. Americans are starting to get involved in the idea of divesting ourselves from relying on the Persian Gulf.


The hybrid Escape, the first such vehicle to hit the market from a Detroit automaker, will boast a combined fuel economy of 35 to 40 miles per gallon in city driving and 30 mpg in highway driving. The four-cylinder base model Escape averages 23 mpg in city and 28 mpg on the highway. Executives say the hybrid Escape's performance will match that of the V6 model.

If this was ever the case, you will see the a huge change in American foreign policy.

[Kitsune]

BlackRain wrote:

I hope in my children's lifetime we can forget the middle east completely.

I don't think that it is very likely that the Near East stays this troubled region it is now till the end of time.
In the year 2030 the word "Al Qaeda" is probably heard most in history lessons.

[Pille1234]

Yes Kitsune, you're right, I don't believe either that we are able to install a democratic, constitutional and pro western state and government in iraq. Actually that makes us just more dependent on Saudi Arabia. In consequence this makes your suggestion to let the Sauds fall impossible. I'm quite sure GWBush would love nothing more than getting after the real terrorists in Saudi Arabia, but there are important economical interests at stake. (Wold economic interests, not US interests only. I add this before someone starts calling me antiamerican.)

As long as the hole middle east is needed as our petrol station, we can't just say good bye, none of our business. Islamists don't care about money as much as corrupt regimes. Hurting the west for ideologic reasons sometimes is more important than money. E.g. the talibans reduced the narcotic planting because of their islamistic believe, although it was a good opportunity of making money.