Pretty pathetic turnout
- Thread starter rama putri
- Start date
B
belgiumcdn
Ranger your kidding right
The kurds would fight for independants the second the US forces pulled out and with no strong Iraqi millitary there would be civil war for sure not to menation the Irainians who I am sure would love to grab a piece of Iraq in it weaken condition
The kurds would fight for independants the second the US forces pulled out and with no strong Iraqi millitary there would be civil war for sure not to menation the Irainians who I am sure would love to grab a piece of Iraq in it weaken condition
Ranger
Have you paid any attention to what's happened in the last 20 years where there has been a major pull out by a ruling party???
Take a look at Yugoslavia. What year were the Winter Olympics in Sarajevo???
Do you really think that the people who are murdering peace keepers, and volunteers from various charitable organizations are interested in accepting the rule of a rival faction?
Do you believe that there is a consensus on a UNITED IRAQI group that will be able to step in an run a country peacefully.
Goodness man give your head a shake.
There is no point in debating whether the US should or should not have been in IRAQ. That point is moot.
The fact is that they are there now, and whether you like or dislike America or Americans. They have not done such a bad job running their country.
Unfortunately, there are too many fools who only have vague theories of how things should be without living in the real world.
Theoretically, pulling out of Iraq now that Saddam has been captured and the army is in disarray is a good idea. It's time for the Iraqi people (with assistance from the US and the UN) to rebuild. Unfortunately, there are a number of factions that will not agree to any type of compromise in government for the good of the Iraqi People.
From what I have seen and read, I believe that the US has been trying to help a goverment get established so that they can pull out of Iraq.
Ranger you are wrong on so many levels it frightens me.
Ranger68 said:
Ranger...don't know you or anything about you so I don't mean to be insulting..Ranger68 said:
Have you paid any attention to what's happened in the last 20 years where there has been a major pull out by a ruling party???
Take a look at Yugoslavia. What year were the Winter Olympics in Sarajevo???
Do you really think that the people who are murdering peace keepers, and volunteers from various charitable organizations are interested in accepting the rule of a rival faction?
Do you believe that there is a consensus on a UNITED IRAQI group that will be able to step in an run a country peacefully.
Goodness man give your head a shake.
There is no point in debating whether the US should or should not have been in IRAQ. That point is moot.
The fact is that they are there now, and whether you like or dislike America or Americans. They have not done such a bad job running their country.
Unfortunately, there are too many fools who only have vague theories of how things should be without living in the real world.
Theoretically, pulling out of Iraq now that Saddam has been captured and the army is in disarray is a good idea. It's time for the Iraqi people (with assistance from the US and the UN) to rebuild. Unfortunately, there are a number of factions that will not agree to any type of compromise in government for the good of the Iraqi People.
From what I have seen and read, I believe that the US has been trying to help a goverment get established so that they can pull out of Iraq.
Ranger you are wrong on so many levels it frightens me.
Hey, asswipe - you're right - you DON'T know anything about me.
Just because you don't *think* the Iraqis are capable of getting along without A CIVIL WAR doesn't make it so.
The point is not moot - the US should not BE in Iraq. Every day they spend there poisons more people against the west, and against the rule of a regime which is going to be pro-American.
Idiot.
Just because you don't *think* the Iraqis are capable of getting along without A CIVIL WAR doesn't make it so.
The point is not moot - the US should not BE in Iraq. Every day they spend there poisons more people against the west, and against the rule of a regime which is going to be pro-American.
Idiot.
B
belgiumcdn
Ranger we have made clear concret reason why we belive there will be civil war in Iraq if the US pulled out today, tell me why you don't think this would be the case
As far as the US being there I think they had no right to Iraq, none what so ever
But the fact remains they are there
As far as the US being there I think they had no right to Iraq, none what so ever
But the fact remains they are there
Last edited:
Case in Point
Just because you don't believe that we believe that the Iraqi's believe that the UN or the US believe... blah blah blah blah....
Your comments above prove the nature of your character. Sorry for your loss.
For those with intelligent thought on the matter please join in.
To follow your line of reasoning..Ranger68 said:
Just because you don't believe that we believe that the Iraqi's believe that the UN or the US believe... blah blah blah blah....
Your comments above prove the nature of your character. Sorry for your loss.
For those with intelligent thought on the matter please join in.
Douchebag, I'll lay it out for you, nice and slow, so you can comprehend. (Not that *your* post was much better than blah blah blah get your head out of your ass blah blah blah what have you beem smoking blah blah blah. An intelligent opening would have engendered an intelligent response. Acting like an ignorant ass gets you called one.)
First, the VAST majority of the violence in Iraq these days (that's not being perpetrated by the Americans, mind you) is directed at the occupying forces and allies - all westerners and those seen as being complicit with the occupiers are included. Even if this violence translated entirely to the new American regime (almost certainly *some, though not *all* of it would), this would not equate to outright civil war.
Second, your example of the Balkans is pitifully weak. The historical violence in the Balkans is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE worse than anything in the Arab sphere. They've undergone MANY civil wars in their histories, and the UN / NATO involvement predictably didn't change all that much.
Third, don't equate violence, even severe acts of violence, as a civil war. Violence exists in LOTS of countries - this is not the same as all-out civil war, which would almost certainly not take place in Iraq.
But, don't take my word for it. Here's Gwynn Dyer's:
"Nobody is willing to send more troops into the Iraqi cauldron or to bless the occupation as a UN operation - the whole point of the exercise was to get the US troops out - but they are willing to indulge in a little hypocrisy if it would speed American troops on their way. They were well aware that chaos might reign in Iraq afterwards, but Iraq was in chaos already. The priority for the whole world was to get the US defeat in Iraq over with and forgotten as soon as possible and with the least possible damage to American self-esteem, rather than submit to the inevitability of a long, bitter, losing guerilla war that would set the United States against the rest of the world, feed Islamist extremism, and undermine the whole project for great-power collaboration in the service of peace."
"Even the most flawed of elections in Iraq in January would give a victorious President Bush (victorious in the US election) the opportunity of pulling US troops out and enjoying a "decent interval" of a year or two (as Henry Kissinger put it when pulling US troops out of South Viet Nam in 1973) before the roof fell in on the government that Washington left in charge in Baghdad."
"Iraq is an ethincally complex country that has suffered under a succession of bad governments, and the dominant political tradition at the top since the overthrow of its British-imposed monarchy in 1958 has been brutally simple: losers die. However, all the other countries in the vicinity are ethnically complex too: Turkey is almost a quarter Kurdish, Syria has Sunni Arabs and Alawites and Druze and Kurds, Lebanon omits the Kurds but adds several varieties of Christian Arabs to the mix - and Iran has Persians and big minorities of Kurds, Azeri Turks, Arabs, Turcomans, and Baluchis. Most of these countries also have *turbulent and frequently violent political histories*, and all of them have seen clashes between ethnic groups in the past century. But only one of them, Lebanon, has tumbled into a full-scale civil war. There is no particular reason to believe that Iraq would do so if American forces left. It didn't during eight decades of independence before the United States invaded.
"There is not even any good reason to despair of a democratic future for Iraq, *provided that American troops do not stay so long that power automatically devolves to the men with the guns who finally drive them out.*"
I guess Dyer's smoking the same thing I am.
Next time, before you *ask* for intelligent thought on the matter, please *provide* some.
Next.
First, the VAST majority of the violence in Iraq these days (that's not being perpetrated by the Americans, mind you) is directed at the occupying forces and allies - all westerners and those seen as being complicit with the occupiers are included. Even if this violence translated entirely to the new American regime (almost certainly *some, though not *all* of it would), this would not equate to outright civil war.
Second, your example of the Balkans is pitifully weak. The historical violence in the Balkans is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE worse than anything in the Arab sphere. They've undergone MANY civil wars in their histories, and the UN / NATO involvement predictably didn't change all that much.
Third, don't equate violence, even severe acts of violence, as a civil war. Violence exists in LOTS of countries - this is not the same as all-out civil war, which would almost certainly not take place in Iraq.
But, don't take my word for it. Here's Gwynn Dyer's:
"Nobody is willing to send more troops into the Iraqi cauldron or to bless the occupation as a UN operation - the whole point of the exercise was to get the US troops out - but they are willing to indulge in a little hypocrisy if it would speed American troops on their way. They were well aware that chaos might reign in Iraq afterwards, but Iraq was in chaos already. The priority for the whole world was to get the US defeat in Iraq over with and forgotten as soon as possible and with the least possible damage to American self-esteem, rather than submit to the inevitability of a long, bitter, losing guerilla war that would set the United States against the rest of the world, feed Islamist extremism, and undermine the whole project for great-power collaboration in the service of peace."
"Even the most flawed of elections in Iraq in January would give a victorious President Bush (victorious in the US election) the opportunity of pulling US troops out and enjoying a "decent interval" of a year or two (as Henry Kissinger put it when pulling US troops out of South Viet Nam in 1973) before the roof fell in on the government that Washington left in charge in Baghdad."
"Iraq is an ethincally complex country that has suffered under a succession of bad governments, and the dominant political tradition at the top since the overthrow of its British-imposed monarchy in 1958 has been brutally simple: losers die. However, all the other countries in the vicinity are ethnically complex too: Turkey is almost a quarter Kurdish, Syria has Sunni Arabs and Alawites and Druze and Kurds, Lebanon omits the Kurds but adds several varieties of Christian Arabs to the mix - and Iran has Persians and big minorities of Kurds, Azeri Turks, Arabs, Turcomans, and Baluchis. Most of these countries also have *turbulent and frequently violent political histories*, and all of them have seen clashes between ethnic groups in the past century. But only one of them, Lebanon, has tumbled into a full-scale civil war. There is no particular reason to believe that Iraq would do so if American forces left. It didn't during eight decades of independence before the United States invaded.
"There is not even any good reason to despair of a democratic future for Iraq, *provided that American troops do not stay so long that power automatically devolves to the men with the guns who finally drive them out.*"
I guess Dyer's smoking the same thing I am.
Next time, before you *ask* for intelligent thought on the matter, please *provide* some.
Next.
You haven't made anything clear, just insulted my *belief* of the opposite opinion.belgiumcdn said:
What's your evidence? Attacking my position doesn't count.
Please see my detailed post, deconstructing what I *surmise* are your premises, though you haven't provided any.
B
belgiumcdn
All the countires mentioned above have strong stable central goverments they may be corrupt but they can inforce there will. As soon as the US removes there troops with no strong central force inplace to keep they differrent parties in line there will be civil war
count on it
count on it
That has not always been the case. Not by a long-shot. Even Iraq provided a *recent* counter-example. At the end of the first Gulf War, much of Saddam's regime was in shambles, including the vast majority of his most loyal soldiers and warmaking apparatus. Did the country descend into civil war even then? Nope. Lots of violence. Hell, there's lots of violence now.
No civil war, though, even with the lack of a "strong stable central government".
Seems to me Iran had a *revolution* without facing a civil war. And anyone who calls Turkey's government "strong and stable" has some pretty wide interpretations of those words.
Anything else?
No civil war, though, even with the lack of a "strong stable central government".
Seems to me Iran had a *revolution* without facing a civil war. And anyone who calls Turkey's government "strong and stable" has some pretty wide interpretations of those words.
Anything else?
B
belgiumcdn
The reason there was no civil war then or today was the fact the US has been there since the first invasion and no one there is looking to have the american army look to closely at them. But once that force as been removed all bets are off
I agree turkeys goverment may not be the most stable but the still have a intack army that can inforce the will of a single group
I agree turkeys goverment may not be the most stable but the still have a intack army that can inforce the will of a single group
B
belgiumcdn
You think the "no fly zone" prevented a civil war? This was enforced against Saddam, and in no way affected the ability of others to foment civil war.
Civil wars can be prosecuted, and typically are, primarily with ground troops - foot soldiers slogging it out against the enemy. The Kurds HAD no planes - nobody did, except Saddam. Why didn't the other factions, eager for Saddam's blood, rise up against him, and destroy their enemies?
I'll say it again. There were NO US troops in Iraq following the First Gulf War.
Civil wars can be prosecuted, and typically are, primarily with ground troops - foot soldiers slogging it out against the enemy. The Kurds HAD no planes - nobody did, except Saddam. Why didn't the other factions, eager for Saddam's blood, rise up against him, and destroy their enemies?
I'll say it again. There were NO US troops in Iraq following the First Gulf War.
B
belgiumcdn
There where US troop in the Perisan gulf after the first gulf war and Saddams main forces where never defeated he still maintain a strong arm in his own country with a watchful eye from uncle sam
Saddam's forces were never defeated??
Were you watching??
Nonsense.
American troops in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in no way prevented a civil war. The close proximity of large, lethal forces, until very recently conducting offensive operations against Saddam, can only be seen as *encouraging* others to rise up against him.
Isn't this obvious?
Frankly, many in Iraq died who were *expecting* Saddam to be overthrown, who were *waiting* for further American involvement. None came, and there was no civil war-uprising against Hussein. This had NOTHING to do with the fact that American troops were back to their Saudi bases.
Were you watching??
Nonsense.
American troops in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in no way prevented a civil war. The close proximity of large, lethal forces, until very recently conducting offensive operations against Saddam, can only be seen as *encouraging* others to rise up against him.
Isn't this obvious?
Frankly, many in Iraq died who were *expecting* Saddam to be overthrown, who were *waiting* for further American involvement. None came, and there was no civil war-uprising against Hussein. This had NOTHING to do with the fact that American troops were back to their Saudi bases.
Re: Case in Point
Ranger's problem is, that he believes that he is too smart for all of us. He consistently talks down to people and tries to belittle them. You can tell when you hit a nerve with him, because he usually starts to insult you.
Make s me wonder why he spends so much time on this board. According to him we are all doucheheads,asswipe, moron etc etc and are not worthy to be in his presence.
Maybe he just needs somebody to talk too, who knows.
It usually gets really good when he pulls out his demi-god Dyer. He must feel true love for this guy, or maybe it's him promoting his book....LOL
Don't feel bad slowandeasy.slowandeasy said:
Ranger's problem is, that he believes that he is too smart for all of us. He consistently talks down to people and tries to belittle them. You can tell when you hit a nerve with him, because he usually starts to insult you.
Make s me wonder why he spends so much time on this board. According to him we are all doucheheads,asswipe, moron etc etc and are not worthy to be in his presence.
Maybe he just needs somebody to talk too, who knows.
It usually gets really good when he pulls out his demi-god Dyer. He must feel true love for this guy, or maybe it's him promoting his book....LOL
Ranger...Ranger have you been laying of your medication again?Ranger68 said:Anything intelligent to say, Langeweile?
More sheep-like toeing of the party line?
No?
LOL
I thought you left.
Buh-bye.
Thanks for contributing, though.
BTW, you know nothing about my party affiliations. Now go back and take your pills.
