So, now that 72% of US troops in Iraq say it's time to leave

[gerryhatrick]

Ok, what is the 'course' Gerry?

What is Bushs course? I don't know, and niether does he quite obviously. His course is "stay the course", which is just stay in Iraq and hope that peace and democracy breaks out. And, is an Iraq in turmoil with iranians running it productive for your vision?

For the love of God, Bush and his Cabinet tells us that if they leave Iraq it will fall into the hands of Al-Qaida! Do you believe that? To anyone with the least amount of knowledge about the realities in Iraq it's absolute nonsense!

What in hell are you talking about? I don't recall any sort of speech saying the above.

Just because you don't recall things doesn't mean they aren't happening:

The United States will not abandon Iraq. We will not leave that country to the terrorists who attacked America and want to attack us again.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060320/dcm067.html?.v=22

That was just the other day. Just one example. He and his Cabinet says it all the time KK. You really should pay more attention to them.

[KrustyKidd]

What is Bushs course? I don't know, and niether does he quite obviously.

The course is to stay in Iraq until it stabilizes enough so that it can stand on it's own. With all parties now comming together in both the negotiating table and joining in the political process it is working. If you cannot see that then obviously the whole concept will be fairly confusing for you.

Just because you don't recall things doesn't mean they aren't happening:

Hang on a second Gerry. You said

For the love of God, Bush and his Cabinet tells us that if they leave Iraq it will fall into the hands of Al-Qaida!

For proof, you give

The United States will not abandon Iraq. We will not leave that country to the terrorists who attacked America and want to attack us again.

You making your own shit up Gerry? Is that what you have to do to make your argument valid?

Here is the context of the comment.

The terrorists who are setting off bombs in mosques and markets in Iraq share the same hateful ideology as the terrorists who attacked us on September the 11th, 2001, those who blew up commuters in London and Madrid, and those who murdered tourists in Bali, or workers in Riyadh, or guests at a wedding in Amman, Jordan.

Next para;

n the Middle East, freedom is once again contending with an ideology that seeks to sow anger and hatred and despair. And like fascism and communism before, the hateful ideologies that use terror will be defeated. Freedom will prevail in Iraq; freedom will prevail in the Middle East; and as the hope of freedom spreads to nations that have not known it, these countries will become allies in the cause of peace.

And finally, your

For the love of God, Bush and his Cabinet tells us that if they leave Iraq it will fall into the hands of Al-Qaida!

The United States will not abandon Iraq. We will not leave that country to the terrorists who attacked America and want to attack us again.

To somebody who has a predisposition for failure and thinks two dimensionally, I can see where you might make that connection. You probably believed Saddam was responsible for 911 too right?

[gerryhatrick]

Hang on a second Gerry. You said

For the love of God, Bush and his Cabinet tells us that if they leave Iraq it will fall into the hands of Al-Qaida!

For proof, you give

The United States will not abandon Iraq. We will not leave that country to the terrorists who attacked America and want to attack us again.

You making your own shit up Gerry? Is that what you have to do to make your argument valid?

That's very funny, but the context is clear. Bush is clearly saying they won't leave Iraq to terrorists.

I provided the link, so obviously I'm not making it up.

And besides this recent example, they've (and by they, I mean Bush and his Cabinet) have continually said that if the US leaves Iraq it would be abandoning it to the terrorists.

How you can deny this is beyond belief.

Why do I get the impression that you're not debating in good faith...that you're being intelectually dishonest here?

[KrustyKidd]

Why do I get the impression that you're not debating in good faith...that you're being intelectually dishonest here?

Nice attempt to get out of this by feigning indignity Gerry. You stated that Bush said

Gerry

For the love of God, Bush and his Cabinet tells us that if they leave Iraq it will fall into the hands of Al-Qaida!

He did not did he? His entire tirade was to state that the forces opposing the democratic process were a melange of people who did not wish to give freedom to anybody. And, were in fact terrorists. Funny, I think I even said that in this thread even when you knew most of the characters and the threat they posed..

Gerry

Foreign terrorists, Sunni insurgents, Shiite insurgents, and US soldiers all have one thing in common....they want the USA out of Iraq.

KK

Quite the quorum to support your point, and they all have other things in common - they don't have a vote in this matter, except for the US soldiers they all want to take over Iraq under their rule,

[gerryhatrick]

He did not did he?

Actually yes, he specifically did. And he's done it before, as have member of his Cabinet.

This is not spun, it's his own words:

The United States will not abandon Iraq. We will not leave that country to the terrorists who attacked America and want to attack us again.

That's a complete sentence. I'm not leaving out any context. The context is Bush saying the USA will not abandon Iraq to Al-Qaida.

You are reaching and missing. Give it up.

[KrustyKidd]

You are reaching and missing. Give it up.

Nice stretch Gerry. I suppose if it feels good you should go for it.

The terrorists who are setting off bombs in mosques and markets in Iraq share the same hateful ideology as the terrorists who attacked us on September the 11th, 2001,

Sure he din't mean idealology? Or did he specidficly say Al Queda will take over Iraq? Do they have that many guys to do it with? I mean, is there 150,000 AQ Waffen SS troopers there to begin with?

.

[gerryhatrick]

Sure he din't mean idealology? Or did he specidficly say Al Queda will take over Iraq? Do they have that many guys to do it with? I mean, is there 150,000 AQ Waffen SS troopers there to begin with?

Well, you can always write him a letter and ask, but his words were pretty clear:

The United States will not abandon Iraq. We will not leave that country to the terrorists who attacked America and want to attack us again.

I don't know why you're picking on this point to be-labor. You're pointing at words he used elsewhere in the same speach and claiming that means these words are not specific. weak.

And as I've said, they've made the claim that leaving Iraq would leave it in the hands of terrorists over and over and over.

Arguing that fact does wonders to kill your credibility.

Time to get back on topic anyway.

The USA is the common enemy in Iraq for foreign terrorists and Iraqi insurgents. That is undeniable.

Thus, their continued presence only continues violence that would otherwise not occur.

I'm interested to hear something from you.

Besides your non-specific claims that the region would blow up if the US left Iraq, what do you think would happen in Iraq?

Do you think the violence would explode? If so, why? Sectarian violence? Terrorist violence?

Explain why (if) you believe violence would increase if US left please.

Help me understand why it's anything more than fear-mongering by the Bush admin. thx.

[KrustyKidd]

Help me understand why it's anything more than fear-mongering by the Bush admin. thx.

Besides your non-specific claims that the region would blow up if the US left Iraq, what do you think would happen in Iraq?

Sure, I'll take a stab. It's imaginary as it is not even a possibilityas the US is not going anywhere unless Kaptain Kangaroo gets elected but I'll see if I can take a guess with reason. Please don't quote me for any future arguments as I'm just going to go off the top of my head without going to the books on it.

Giimie a few and I'll edit this with a scenario of sorts

So far;

So, what would happen if the US left Iraq tommorow

First, there would be a massive airlift with supplies to the Iraq military. Spare parts and all for the new US equipment.

The US would have a brief exodus to the western desert where their new bases are for the forty thousand troops they had planned on leaving there from prior to the 2003 invasion. There, the area of course would be heavily fortified and secured. It's a given that no Iraq military units would be working in concert near them as they would more than likely be written off as sure to fail within a month or a few after the support was dropped.

In Baghdad, it would errupt in Sectarian violence as Shiite militias now were free to roam and Sunnis would open the flood gates to foreign Jihadists to fight alongside them.

In other countries, I can see terrorism possibly, yet temporarily droppiong to virtual zero as Iraq and the Shiite battles about to be fought would draw them in like free beer.

In all the held territories, Sunni and Shiite, there would be reprisals on supporters of the political process no matter who they were. There would virtually be blood in the streets as for example, a Sunni who participated in the government would be hung as a Shiite supoorter and vice versa. This action would have the main effect of eliminating any contact and ability to work with the other sect and have the main effect of eliminating further, any oportunity to work with other nations to act in any way to stop the ever escalating violence.

There would be a flurry of talk at the UN but at this point, no nation would dare put their troops in without support and the ability to control an entire country fighting against each other, especially with the Iranian influence permitted to have full access to Iraq.

Electricity would fail soon after leaving the entire city starving, if it did manage to get up sporadically, it would be cut off by any loose cannon with a gripe. The army would melt in days as they would return to their homes to support their families and tribes. Larger cities would all be like Baghdad as there would be no authority to enable resupply, water, power and any form of basic service. Disease would more than likely become the primary killer after the second week as transport ground to a stop between the violence and lack of petrol, no bodies could be carted any further than the local neighborhood. Garbage would accululate to horrendous proportions creating amost cities of rats in every neighborhood.

The UN would of course attempt to take action to relieve the city but, due to it's location, ground travel through areas of the country controlled by local militia would come under attack for the same supplies destined for the city. Airlift would be the only way in and, once there, would also be subject to the same problems throughout the city as the different factions would see the control of food as political and military power and this, control it wherever possible to the extent where by a convoy of food would be a target worth it's wieght in gold to the local militia commanders. If they have that food, they command power and can grow, thus, in a city of five milion people, very few will get relief.

As stated before, no nation would want to send their troops in there to even attempt to control the population much less restore anything. Electrical lines would be cut faster than they could be fixed and pretty much, people would be left wtih one choice, move out or die. As this mass exodus occured, it would provide an opportunity for relief to come in the form of air drops. These would be filmed and the scrambling miserables' rushing for the food would be testament to Bush's inneptitude in handling the entire situation by not stay8ing the logical course.

In smaller areas, where large scale fighting was not taking place, they would try to protect what they had by forming a Militia centered around the most authoritive figureheads - basically Clerics. With the lacking of meaningful trade from a centralized source or distribution, this would quickly degenerate into a tribal affair with the Clerics then being figureheads for Afgan type Warlords. Once this process starts, it is only a matter of time until they form alliances with other more powerful Warlords and such and then, the opportunity to actually have a central force take the country and return it to order would be gone.

Iran would pour in supplies to the Shiites by endless convoys and, after seeing this, the Saudis would, more than likely from pressure of the population and Al Queda rhetoric backed by Imanns stop their campaign against Al Queda to allow them to regroup with money, arms and some sort of 'unofficial' support of military equipment.

On the Syrian front, the US would have it's hands full trying to stop infiltrators but then the entire Left wing shift of the US public would go from pulling troops out to stoping the Shiite dominated blood bath and, more than likely allow the Jihhaists into Iraq with a wink and a nod. At this point, the reason for their being in the west would be gone and they would either stay there marking time or, be dispatched elsewhere in the region such as kuwait, or even Turkey.

In the Kurdish territories, there would be a rush to solidify and defend their gains from whatever forces tried to take them away. This, frightening Iran would also provide a pretext for invasion. It is likely that Turkey would go into hasty negotiations with the Iranians and possibly have an unofficial joint move against their attempts to finally realize their own true third world nation rather than the fourth they have lived with for so long but in any case, the US would not be part of those negotiations and, it would be virtually limited to a nuclear threat on Iran and defending Turkey under the Nato pact.

This in turn would get the hairs of the US up but even with the Left and Right unified in saying how they should be doing something there really wouldn't be much they could do to stop the war in the south and north as negotiations would hold absolutely no credibility. They would have no military power other than the based troops in the west, definitely no political equity as they don't stay the course and, hold no power if there was any group to deal with but, once the degeneration had begun, the entities that had provided cohesiveness also disintegrated leaving any would be controlling power having to now deal with hundreds of separate groups all looking after their own small piece of the country. An impossible situation to say the least. Even Saudi Arabia included who know that as soon as what happens in Iraq happens, they are wearing a bullseye on their robes.

So, right there, you have a Royal Family just waiting for the Sunnis to finish their war in the north and they will, with a broader based movement go south to claim their prize after eight hundred years in waiting.

Kuwait of course would become Iranian in the mix. Giving Iran either control over the bulk of the petro resources in the area or, at the very least, bargaiing power. To reverse the previous position of where the US had no bargaining power, they might be able to hold it for a while with a nuclear threat but eventually, it would fall to either the Iraqi Shiites, Sunnis or Iranians unless of course, the entire courntry was going to become a US protectoriate.

Six months down the road, Saudi Arabia would be faced with a horrible decision - either go full scale into Iraq in a proxy war with Iran to ensure the Sunnis have a chance at survival or, allow a force known as Al Queda to bring the entire Saudi population to point of revolution and beyond for being inactive to help their Sunni brothers in Iraq. They would more than likely pick aiding the Sunnis as Iran could not be allowed to win in Iraq. This of course would either be the beggining of the end of the turmoil as Iran backs off and/or negotiates leaving a good part of Iraq in the hands of Al Queda or a Taliban type entity or, goes full throttle into a conflict reminicent of the Iran Iraq war with the prize being not only Iraq but, Kuwait and possibly Saudi Arabia itself as well by proxy government.

There is another possibility at this point if the US public is finally seeing how this could affect everything - they may rally under a president other than Bush to actually do the unthinkable and invade Saudi Arabia to prop up the house of Saud. A very bad thing to do but, it may end up being the only option left at that point.

Further reaching consequences;

As Al Queda gains actual political status in Saudi Arabia, it legitimizes their force in Iraq. Eagar to be associated with a power broker such as they, Clerics ally themselves with the Jihadists and slowely the two main beligerent philosophical sides begin to realise a cohesiveness that makes talks possible.

While violence still breaks out, it is somewhat controlled as each side now is beggining to form a central core of sorts. The Shia are barely anything but an Iranian puppet, using arms supplied from Iran while the Sunnis, now at this point as the quiet comes, begin to wonder if their sould has been sold to the wrong people. At this point, over a quarter million people have died and relief is finally allowed to come in from the outside world.

The UN as always is talking peace. The opportunity is getting better and, with the two sides being more organized, this allows for dirrect talks with semi authoritive figures from each. With Iranian participation of course.

Al Queda not being a body that would be able to command recognition by any world body only forms a shadow and theological base for the Clerics in charge of the Sunnis. They easily mould them into whatever shape they want as they basically control the force. Dissenters are swiftly silenced with street trials for being aposhates and the like. Then, with their position secure, they now turn elsewhere.

As with all societies, the Arab world loves winners and, as a winner, Al Queda certainly does command respect. Slightly short of being legitimate, they have legendary status amongst the general disenfranchised populations of US supported regimes nearby. Egypt, Syria, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are now experienceing severe control problems with the internal operations of their country. The lull in Iraq allows Al Queda to disperse uneeded men back to their home countries with general missions to increase this pressure and disatisfacton.

In Saudi Arabia, they are viewed as heros. And as such, they find a Royal Family with a very changed attitude towards them than the hunted and imprisoned beings they were when the US was in the region actively prosecuting the War on Terror. Appeased and rewarded for their heroism, the Saudi Government reverses the human rights revisions they had awarded women and others when they fought alongside the US during the Iraq mission. At this point, much unlike the betrayal they dished out after Afganistan, they begin to actually pay Al Queda to aid in their goals as they are eagar to still any talk of them being non supportive towards these Jihadists.

The money continues to flow and goes to all corners of the Muslim world where enhanced terrorist activities occur. Egypt's government is under crisis as it is experienceing riots from angry populations who cry out for security and other religious factions who pressure for more conservative values. Stuck with the two groups and, terrorist acts occuring at an alarming rate, Mubarak relinquishes more control to clerics. This slows the terrorism and the population quiets down, for now.

The oil continues to flow from the area to Europe and China where they are all too happy to pay and, to take back the same money via arms and fod shipments. Al Queda, now a silent partner in more than a few countries takes their payment and immediately turns it into the currency of somethng new - aid.

Here they do a simple game of destroying a weak governments infastructure and basic services then, after rallying the population unites them with what they need. Food and medicine. With the population united under one rule that is effective, the government is hard pressed to take control away at this point and becomes inert. Within five years, almost every country in the Middle East and as far as Indonesia is a virtual shell. Ready to be crushed at will by Al Queda when the time is right.

That's it for now. If you like, I'll speculate on further reaching consequences later.

[KrustyKidd]

And as I've said, they've made the claim that leaving Iraq would leave it in the hands of terrorists over and over and over.

Uh huh. So did Bush. He said

The terrorists who are setting off bombs in mosques and markets in Iraq share the same hateful ideology as the terrorists who attacked us on September the 11th, 2001,

He also said

The United States will not abandon Iraq. We will not leave that country to the terrorists who attacked America and want to attack us again.

I would imagine that like you have made the same error as he "leave it in the hands of terrorists over and over and over" and him not being specific whatsoever that Al Queda would take over Iraq but rather those with the same ideology (oppression and totolatarianism) would rule Iraq. Al Queda is in Iraq at this time operating so, if the US did leave, it would leave an active Al Queda behind. It's all semantics.

Hence, his words are accurate but really Gerry, I believe you are stretching it and I wish a couple of other members would come in and give some weight to this as it is wasting both our bandwidths picking fly shit from pepper on this point.

[gerryhatrick]

I would imagine that like you have made the same error as he "leave it in the hands of terrorists over and over and over" and him not being specific whatsoever that Al Queda would take over Iraq but rather those with the same ideology (oppression and totolatarianism) would rule Iraq.

Listen KK, it's a dumb side-argument you're attempting to stoke for some reason. He clearly said leaving Iraq would be leaving it to those who attacked them on 9/11, not those with the same ideology.

Just because you found another line in which he refers to people with the same ideology doesn't change the explicit meaning of the line I quoted, no matter how much you wish it did.

You're getting tripped up on Al-Qaida anyway. The key point is terrorists. Bush and his Cabinet say over and over and over that if the US left Iraq they'd be leaving it to terrorists.

It's not supported by any evidence. It's just more fear mongering.

A plurality of Iraqis feel attacks on US troops are justified (I'd bet a paycheck that's gone up since the recent attacks and clashes), 80+ percent want the US out of Iraq, and 72% of US troops want out.

This points to some clear conclusions and John Murtha is vocalizing them: the US is the common enemy in Iraq and until they leave the violence will continue and likely worsen.

[KrustyKidd]

Listen KK, it's a dumb side-argument you're attempting to stoke for some reason.

No. You started the side track when you said that Bush was dumb enough to believe that Al Queda was going to take over Iraq when he said they were fighting the people who attacked them on 911. Obviously those who did that are dead and therefore cannot be the same ones in Iraq. Therefore, he would have to be referring to mean the same type of people.

Just because you found another line in which he refers to people with the same ideology doesn't change the explicit meaning of the line I quoted, no matter how much you wish it did.

You mean he believes they are fighting ghosts?

Edit:

You're getting tripped up on Al-Qaida anyway. The key point is terrorists. Bush and his Cabinet say over and over and over that if the US left Iraq they'd be leaving it to terrorists.

It's not supported by any evidence. It's just more fear mongering.

Correct. However, not fear mongering but simplification of a message that took me an hour to write last night and, would more than likely go over the heads of most people. Therefore, a more simpler message is

Terrorists bad. Leaving Iraq would leave Iraq in hands of bad people.

Therefore, leaving Iraq in the hands of terrorists = Iraq in the hands of bad people. (which is obviously bad)

Now, without getting out pie charts and confusing people with a message of Iranian involvement as well as the fourteen hundred year old difference between Sunnis ands Shiites as well as the Kurdish fourth world nation's concerns, economic and how conservative Wahabbism comes into play, he just says the above.

Here, you try it. Answer this assertation why the US should stay in Iraq with one easily deceminated phrase to say why the US should leave.

In Iraq, all sides are comming to the negotiating table historicaly for the first time to create a free, democratic government and, to leave now would for certain, allow sectarian violence to take place, with the victor, if any, being totolatarian without reguard for human rights, ruling by fear and terror and, as such, would be an enemy and threat to any freedom loving people.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Krusty Kid,

to leave now would for certain, allow sectarian violence to take place,

They have that now. They are going to have more of it anyway. The US would never 'pull out' completely anyway, they would pick a side to 'covertly assist', and try to buy the allegiance of that side which they wish to win.

Freedom, and if so wished, democracy, can only both come and stay if it is 1. wished for and 2. fought for, by the people who are to have it. It is in the hands of the Iraq's now, if they are going to 'have it out', might as well be sooner rather than later.

[JerrySeinfeld]

It is a Zogby poll. They are a respected pollster.

And since when did the appearance of the word "peace" immediately indicate the infusion of bias anyway? Has it come to that? Bush himself talks about desiring peace, that lefty freak.

Zogby? haha!

"respected"? by whom? anti-war zealots?

[KrustyKidd]

They have that now. They are going to have more of it anyway. The US would never 'pull out' completely anyway, they would pick a side to 'covertly assist', and try to buy the allegiance of that side which they wish to win.

Which side Lonius? You would have Warlords aplenty in every nook and cranny, all with no central command.

Freedom, and if so wished, democracy, can only both come and stay if it is 1. wished for and 2. fought for, by the people who are to have it. It is in the hands of the Iraq's now, if they are going to 'have it out', might as well be sooner rather than later

Yes indeed, I remember Canada's bloody civil war in which our forefathers died. And pretty much every other democracy, how they were born of fire, disease and death. Get real. Nowhere is death a prerequisite for a democracy to occur.

How about letting them continue with the political process? I mean, a quarter to half a million lives saved, it's pretty much there already but you think that going back to less than square one and letting people kill themselves in Stalinistic proportions is the way to do it?

The end result will be a desert of death and cities out of an end of the world appocolyptic movie, completely mixed in with a religion of death and oppression. Hardly conductive to building anything much less a democracy.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Krusty Kid,

Get real. Nowhere is death a prerequisite for a democracy to occur.

Um, read any news from Iraq lately? I understand it actually isn't a theoretical prerequisite, but it often turns out that way. Canada's history certainly isn't bloodless, even though 'independence' came over time, rather than over dead bodies.

[KrustyKidd]

Um, read any news from Iraq lately?

Yes and also read the political news as well. It's insurgent activity with retaliation against percieved and supected perpetrators, not a country wide movement with three opposing sides 'hunkering down.' It is not out of control and there is a main core government comprised of the overall demographical population representatives.

I understand it actually isn't a theoretical prerequisite, but it often turns out that way.

Name a few from the last fity years.

Canada's history certainly isn't bloodless, even though 'independence' came over time, rather than over dead bodies.

Ok, that takes care of one from before the above time frame. So, your point is that Iraqis must go through a 'hazing' period of a half million deaths? You're not the Iranian President are you?

[gerryhatrick]

Listen KK, it's a dumb side-argument you're attempting to stoke for some reason.

No. You started the side track when you said that Bush was dumb enough to believe that Al Queda was going to take over Iraq when he said they were fighting the people who attacked them on 911. Obviously those who did that are dead and therefore cannot be the same ones in Iraq. Therefore, he would have to be referring to mean the same type of people.

OMG. The dumb side-argument just got dumber. You're actually suggesting that Al-Qaida is dead!!!

No I know...I know. You're of course being literal to the point of childishness. Al-Qaida is still alive and well and when Mr. Inevitable War Idiot said leaving Iraq meant leaving it to those people who attacked them on 9/11 he meant the organization, not the specific individuals.

That was a fun waste of time, huh?

[KrustyKidd]

No I know...I know. You're of course being literal to the point of childishness. Al-Qaida is still alive and well and when Mr. Inevitable War Idiot said leaving Iraq meant leaving it to those people who attacked them on 9/11 he meant the organization, not the specific individuals.

Almost but not quite. Al Queda is not a force in Iraq. They are a presence and at the moment, a minor one at that. That is how I know that he meant those who were idealogically similar in mission.

That was a fun waste of time, huh?

It was actually.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Krusty Kid,

Name a few from the last fity years.

I shall take a few from "The CIA World Factbook", if that's ok.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ao.html

Peace seemed imminent in 1992 when Angola held national elections, but UNITA renewed fighting after being beaten by the MPLA at the polls. Up to 1.5 million lives may have been lost - and 4 million people displaced - in the quarter century of fighting.

Bear in mind, the US and their CIA supported UNITA, in what was, on both sides, a tremendously brutal conflict. When democracy finally came, the US didn't get the result they hoped for, so they renewed the fighting. What is it called, again, when someone targets and murders the civilians of a democratically elected government with the aim of bringing down that gov't? Oh, yeah, Terrorism.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/bk.html

The Bosnian Serbs - supported by neighboring Serbia and Montenegro - responded with armed resistance aimed at partitioning the republic along ethnic lines and joining Serb-held areas to form a "Greater Serbia." In March 1994, Bosniaks and Croats reduced the number of warring factions from three to two by signing an agreement creating a joint Bosniak/Croat Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. On 21 November 1995, in Dayton, Ohio, the warring parties initialed a peace agreement that brought to a halt three years of interethnic civil strife (the final agreement was signed in Paris on 14 December 1995). The Dayton Peace Accords retained Bosnia and Herzegovina's international boundaries and created a joint multi-ethnic and democratic government charged with conducting foreign, diplomatic, and fiscal policy.

How about one that hasn't happened yet...Taiwan? They wish democratic independence from a communist regime...and even the US won't come out publicly to support them. China would be a formidable enemy.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/er.html

Ethiopia's annexation of Eritrea as a province 10 years later sparked a 30-year struggle for independence that ended in 1991 with Eritrean rebels defeating governmental forces; independence was overwhelmingly approved in a 1993 referendum.

I would be happy to name some more but have to hit the hay.

[gerryhatrick]

No I know...I know. You're of course being literal to the point of childishness. Al-Qaida is still alive and well and when Mr. Inevitable War Idiot said leaving Iraq meant leaving it to those people who attacked them on 9/11 he meant the organization, not the specific individuals.

Almost but not quite. Al Queda is not a force in Iraq. They are a presence and at the moment, a minor one at that. That is how I know that he meant those who were idealogically similar in mission.

Well again, it's the false claim that it will be left to terrorists if the US leave more than Al-Qaida. Change the record KK.

Did you check out the latest revelations about Bush and Tony Blair? They both agreed there would be no sectarian violence in Iraq after the invasion.

That's the fella you put your world view trust in KK.

[KrustyKidd]

They both agreed there would be no sectarian violence in Iraq after the invasion.

Guess they were wrong. They have been wrong about a lot more than that too. Iranian influence and such. You are telling me nothing new. If you can find a person who is always right then it's time to believe in God.

[gerryhatrick]

They both agreed there would be no sectarian violence in Iraq after the invasion.

Guess they were wrong. They have been wrong about a lot more than that too.

That's correct, they were wrong. They were wrong to invade Iraq and now they're wrong to say it's necessary to remain in Iraq.

A whole pile of wrong.

[KrustyKidd]

That's correct, they were wrong. They were wrong to invade Iraq and now they're wrong to say it's necessary to remain in Iraq.

A whole pile of wrong.

Uh oh, got me on that one.

Wern't

[KrustyKidd]

Dear Krusty Kid,

Name a few from the last fity years.

I shall take a few from "The CIA World Factbook", if that's ok.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ao.html

Peace seemed imminent in 1992 when Angola held national elections, but UNITA renewed fighting after being beaten by the MPLA at the polls. Up to 1.5 million lives may have been lost - and 4 million people displaced - in the quarter century of fighting.

Bear in mind, the US and their CIA supported UNITA, in what was, on both sides, a tremendously brutal conflict. When democracy finally came, the US didn't get the result they hoped for, so they renewed the fighting. What is it called, again, when someone targets and murders the civilians of a democratically elected government with the aim of bringing down that gov't? Oh, yeah, Terrorism.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/bk.html

The Bosnian Serbs - supported by neighboring Serbia and Montenegro - responded with armed resistance aimed at partitioning the republic along ethnic lines and joining Serb-held areas to form a "Greater Serbia." In March 1994, Bosniaks and Croats reduced the number of warring factions from three to two by signing an agreement creating a joint Bosniak/Croat Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. On 21 November 1995, in Dayton, Ohio, the warring parties initialed a peace agreement that brought to a halt three years of interethnic civil strife (the final agreement was signed in Paris on 14 December 1995). The Dayton Peace Accords retained Bosnia and Herzegovina's international boundaries and created a joint multi-ethnic and democratic government charged with conducting foreign, diplomatic, and fiscal policy.

How about one that hasn't happened yet...Taiwan? They wish democratic independence from a communist regime...and even the US won't come out publicly to support them. China would be a formidable enemy.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/er.html

Ethiopia's annexation of Eritrea as a province 10 years later sparked a 30-year struggle for independence that ended in 1991 with Eritrean rebels defeating governmental forces; independence was overwhelmingly approved in a 1993 referendum.

I would be happy to name some more but have to hit the hay.

Here's some from a Wilkpedia visit if that's ok too. I got to 'K' I think and the point I believe was made so I started skipping around and missed probably a few. In any cawe, bloodshed of epic proportions is not a prerequisite of democracy. Some names.

argentina, austria, brazil, canada, Comoros. Federated States of Micronesia, Costa Rica, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Honduras , Kenya, Kiribati, Russia, Tunisia, Uruguay, Venezuela

Oh, I supoose South korea would fit in there too. Bunch more there too that I don't recall having to lose two or three percent of their population in order to have a cold beer sitting in the fridge.

[gerryhatrick]

In any case, violence is happening in Iraq now.

It's astounding KK that you would worry about sectarian violence if the US left.

As if it's not happening now, along with a stream of other violence directed at US troops which continues to cause collateral damage on civilans and structure.

It appears the Iraqi government is getting fed up with the US. Will they leave if asked?

Now the Iraqi government has asked the US to give up security control.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/arch...3/29/2003299786

Time for the US to leave. They're worse than ineffectual now.