Iraqi Death Toll

[jbg]

And we're back to Krazy Krusty land, where words mean what Krusty sez they mean. Fuck this.

Best argument you've put forth in a long time Black Dog. Got me. Can't think of anything to refute your point.

When people feel the necessity to resort to that kind of language they've already lost the debate.

[KrustyKidd]

You contine to ignore the fundamental and fatal paradox of your argument. If the U.S. couldn't stay in SA and deal with AQ from within the country due to the boost it would give the jihadis, then the same limitations apply to U.S. actions from outside the country.

Not talking about the US using sacred soil to attack sacred soil and occupy it. Talking about the US making surgical strikes into Saudi Arabia and getting out immediately afterwards. In any case, the Saudis knew the US would do it and the intent by the US (for the third time Black Dog - hello? Anybody there?) was to force them to act, not for the US to act to their embarassement. It succeeded.

You sound hysterical. Take a breath. Wipe the spittle off your screen. Okay? Good. Now here's why the jihadis can't take over. Say Al Qaeda or some Al Qaeda-esque group topples the government of Saudi Arabia. The only question after that is whether the lifespan of such a regime would be measured in days or merely months. As the Taliban learned in Afghanistan,the problem with taking on the trappings of a state (territory, a military, and economy) is that you then have something more to lose.

Measured in days or months? The Taliban would still be in power if they hadn't refused to give up Osama Bin Laden for crying out loud! Throwing lumber tarps on women, breaking guitars like a druken rock star clitorizing baby girls, basically doing whatever a fundementalist buch of Wahhabist cowboys do for entertainment according to their version of the 'book'.

Sticking feathers up your ass doesn't make you a chicken and holding elections doesn't make you a democracy. Voting for government that cannot provide the basic things governments provide is an excercise in futility.

So because of terrorism acts, a government is doomed to fail? That's not what you said in this thread.

State governments don't fall to random, uncoordinated and unorganized individuals, regardless of their goals. These individuals share an ideology, but without co-ordination, organization and some real muscle there's no way they will be able to achieve their grandioise goals.

Oh, just in case anybody that wants to know what I replied, here you go ....

Krusty Replying to Black Dog saying that terrorists cannot make a government fail. (a reversal of his opinion here today in which he says they can as the government that cannot stop terrorism is in fact, not a government)

They are not atempting to beat the shit out of the government rather, sdeparate the government from the people by showing the government inept, unable to keep the people safe and then, offer a counter choice such as religion or, a better way of life in prayer to their belief system. Lowering and intensifying the attacks as per the flow of public opinion. Won't work in the states but it sure will in Afganistan, Iraq or the Phillipines if no US support is shown.

So Black Dog you flip flopper. Which is it? Terrorists can cause a government to fail or they cannot? If they can, then we would have to say that the democraticly elected government of Iraq (65% voter participation, higher than our own) is being undermined by terrorism. However, it is nonetheless, a democratic government.

Or, if they cannot cause a government to fail then we might surmise that the democraticly elected government of Iraq (65% voter participation, higher than our own) will survive and continue.

[KrustyKidd]

When people feel the necessity to resort to that kind of language they've already lost the debate.

Duh. Thanks for the news flash JBG. I caught onto Black Dog after he tried to play the memory loss game in this and the Iraqi Civil War thread where I explained each point to him at least twice and then, the points vanished only to appear again in another thread, It's interesting to see what is a normally an intelligent poster with valid points getting unwound bit by bit in order to maintain an emotional point. I take no enjoyment of the profanity whatsoever.

Black Dog explaining that democracy is safe streets and any government whether it be communism, dictatorship or monarchy (rather than violence and a weak elected government.)

Fuck this

Yes, he appears to have a point.

[Black Dog]

When people feel the necessity to resort to that kind of language they've already lost the debate.

I guess I could adopt your tactic of just not getting into difficult arguments in the first place....

Back to the main event:

Not talking about the US using sacred soil to attack sacred soil and occupy it. Talking about the US making surgical strikes into Saudi Arabia and getting out immediately afterwards.

Oh I see...

INTERIOR: A desert cave. Two TERRORISTS sit drinking tea around a small table with AK-47s on top. Suddenly a third TERRORIST rushes in.

TERRORIST 3: "Ahmed, Abdul! Did you hear? The Americans are attacking the Holy Land of Mecca and Medina!"

TERRORIST 1: "What?! Quick, my brothers! We must go out and raise the people to meet these infidel dogs and cast them back into the decadent west! This is it! No true follower of the Prophet (PBUH) will resist our call to battle in the face of this affront!"

TERRORIST 2 (calmly): "Hold on, there Ahmed. I saw this on Al Jaezeera already. It's nothing really. Just a few surgical strikes."

TERRORIST 1: "Surgical strikes? Why didn't you say so, Mahmoud? You're such a jerk, getting me all worked up over surgical strikes."

TERRORIST 3: "I...I'm sorry...I just thought, you know, since we hate the infidels and since this is our Holy Land that maybe...can I have some tea?"

TERRORIST 2: "No."

Aaaaaaaannnnnddd.....scene!

Here we have the problem with your argument which is, at its essence, based onthe United States upholding its "rep." Of course the problem with building a reputation is that states or non-state actors generally don't look to past actions to dictate future plans.

As far as sending a message to the Saudis, sending a message depends on a few things:

1. The clarity of the message and the target audience's receptivity to it.

2. The target audience's ability to undertsand the message and interpret it in the manner intended by the sender.

3. The audience's willingness or ability to act on the message in the way the sender wants.

The process can break down at any stage, rendering the message ineffective, or even worse, prompting actions on the part of the audience unintended by the sender. Given the ease in which this chain can break down, the notion that any government in its right mind would undertake a massive, expensive military endeavour for the purpose of "sending a message" is mind-bogglingly dumb, especially when other, simpler explanations can be found.

Measured in days or months? The Taliban would still be in power if they hadn't refused to give up Osama Bin Laden for crying out loud! Throwing lumber tarps on women, breaking guitars like a druken rock star clitorizing baby girls, basically doing whatever a fundementalist buch of Wahhabist cowboys do for entertainment according to their version of the 'book'.

The Taliban ruled a backwater country of little real strategic value in terms of resources. That's why they were left alone to do as they wished until they made the error of harbouring OBL. The instant their regime became a threat to western interests they were out on their asses. Now if you think the west (especially the U.S.) would not act against a Taliban-style regime that took over SA or any other oil kingdom in the Gulf, you're either drunk or just plain dumb.

So because of terrorism acts, a government is doomed to fail? That's not what you said in this thread.

Acually its pretty clear I'm talking about governments that are established, with the means to project its power. Saudi Arabia is such a government. Iraq is not.

Furthermore, terrorism is clearly not the only impediment to central government in Iraq.

Black Dog explaining that democracy is safe streets and any government whether it be communism, dictatorship or monarchy (rather than violence and a weak elected government.)

Hey moron, where did I say "any government"? A democracy is not casting a ballot. It's a set of institutions, such as a free press, a fair judicial system and others that contribute to a stable civil society. Elections are but one ingredient, not the be all and end all you seem to think thEy are.

And, since you like to drag out the Iraq election results again and again and again, its worth noting that this great triumph of democracy broke down completely on sectarian lines: Sunnis voted for Sunni parties, Shiites for Shiite parties and so forth. Hardly what one would call a recipe for democratic consensus. Indeed, history is rife with examples (such as Yugoslavia in 1991, when the first national elections after the fall of communism kick started quite the shitstorm as every single faction voted for its own nationalist interests) where elections serve to excrabate existing social and cultural divisions. IOW, elections, regardless of how many people cast their ballot, are not a panacea.

[Riverwind]

Now if you think the west (especially the U.S.) would not act against a Taliban-style regime that took over SA or any other oil kingdom in the Gulf, you're either drunk or just plain dumb.

The west would not have to act again any Taliban style regime in SA because any such regime would act just like the Mullahs in Iran post 1979: i.e. it would sell as much oil as possible to keep its people happy while it spouted useless rhetoric about the great satan. The people of Afghanistan put up with a gov't that offered them nothing but poverty or international isolation because they did not know any better. The people of SA know that they are sitting on tonnes of oil and would not put up with a regime that made them suffer because it refused to sell oil.

[KrustyKidd]

As far as sending a message to the Saudis, sending a message depends on a few things:

It relies on one thing only - telling them point blank behind closed doors that if they don't start acting on this problem the US will. Then more than likely used Iraq and Afganistan as an example.

The instant their regime became a threat to western interests they were out on their asses. Now if you think the west (especially the U.S.) would not act against a Taliban-style regime that took over SA or any other oil kingdom in the Gulf, you're either drunk or just plain dumb.

Iran, Syria, Yemen. None of them have been destroyed by the US. Need I go on further?

Acually its pretty clear I'm talking about governments that are established, with the means to project its power. Saudi Arabia is such a government. Iraq is not.

Oh, Saudi Arabia with half of the population ready to swing to Al Queda's side if they can percipitate enough critical mass with their anti Royalty and US rhetoric. Yes, 100% secure. Just like many other regimes thoughout the area where Al Queda is active.

Furthermore, terrorism is clearly not the only impediment to central government in Iraq.

What are the impediments then? Seems to me that the base problem is terrorism no matter what the political reasons for any particular group to employ that tactic are. Whether it is conducted by Shiites, Former Regime members, Sunnis or Jihadists. It simply keeps all on edge and weakens the government.

Hey moron, where did I say "any government"? A democracy is not casting a ballot. It's a set of institutions, such as a free press, a fair judicial system and others that contribute to a stable civil society. Elections are but one ingredient, not the be all and end all you seem to think thEy are.

It is though. When the vote comes up again, things that people want will be on the agenda. If freedom of the press is desired then, they will vote for the party that can give it. Same with the rest. Is it not an election promise by many candidates to improve court systems and human rights, even in our own country?

And, since you like to drag out the Iraq election results again and again and again, its worth noting that this great triumph of democracy broke down completely on sectarian lines: Sunnis voted for Sunni parties, Shiites for Shiite parties and so forth.

Predictable given the life they have had for the past fifty years. Here in our country, Quebcqois voted for the PQ. Imagine that! Extreme Right Rednecks voted for the left of center Conservatives who copy their ideas from the Liberals and non morons like you voted for the corrupt Liberals. Seemed to fall into the same pattern as always. In case you haven't figured it out, voting is based on a thing called majority rules and representation. Then again, a smart guy like you knew that right?

So if a country is 80% Shiite and being Shiite is real importent, more than say ..... saving the planet from pop bottle trash, then, it would seem natural that they would vote Shiite rather than Whican than Green wouldn't it? If we follow your logic, there is no sense in having elections anywhere, anytime and with anybody as we would all, no matter who we are, vote for what we think. And, in your smart world, can't have that right?

Hardly what one would call a recipe for democratic consensus. Indeed, history is rife with examples (such as Yugoslavia in 1991, when the first national elections after the fall of communism kick started quite the shitstorm as every single faction voted for its own nationalist interests) where elections serve to excrabate existing social and cultural divisions. IOW, elections, regardless of how many people cast their ballot, are not a panacea.

It's called seats in a parlimentary system. Check it out sometime. Very interesting system. I look forward to your next post so I can teach you more about the basics of politics as there is so far to go .

[Black Dog]

It relies on one thing only - telling them point blank behind closed doors that if they don't start acting on this problem the US will. Then more than likely used Iraq and Afganistan as an example.

You just can't prove that.

Iran, Syria, Yemen. None of them have been destroyed by the US. Need I go on further?

Yes. How many of them are run by jihadists intent on using oil wealth to recreate the Caliphate?

Oh, Saudi Arabia with half of the population ready to swing to Al Queda's side if they can percipitate enough critical mass with their anti Royalty and US rhetoric. Yes, 100% secure. Just like many other regimes thoughout the area where Al Queda is active.

And yet, by your own admission, Saudi Arabia's problem was a lack of will to do anything about AQ activities within their country. If they were as weak and unstable as you say, then they wouldn't have been able to do clamp down on them. So either they are weak and primed for a fall, or they are relatively stable and capable of looking out for themselves. You can't have both.

What are the impediments then? Seems to me that the base problem is terrorism no matter what the political reasons for any particular group to employ that tactic are. Whether it is conducted by Shiites, Former Regime members, Sunnis or Jihadists. It simply keeps all on edge and weakens the government.

You've got it backwards: terrorism is a symptom, not the disease.

It is though. When the vote comes up again, things that people want will be on the agenda. If freedom of the press is desired then, they will vote for the party that can give it. Same with the rest. Is it not an election promise by many candidates to improve court systems and human rights, even in our own country?

If they vote for the party that promises, say, a free press, but that party lacks the ability to deliver, then the act of voting for them is purely symbolic. Christ, by your "elections are everything" logic, Iraq was a thriving democracy before the invasion: they had elections, you know.

Predictable given the life they have had for the past fifty years. Here in our country, Quebcqois voted for the PQ. Imagine that! Extreme Right Rednecks voted for the left of center Conservatives who copy their ideas from the Liberals and non morons like you voted for the corrupt Liberals. Seemed to fall into the same pattern as always. In case you haven't figured it out, voting is based on a thing called majority rules and representation. Then again, a smart guy like you knew that right?

So if a country is 80% Shiite and being Shiite is real importent, more than say ..... saving the planet from pop bottle trash, then, it would seem natural that they would vote Shiite rather than Whican than Green wouldn't it? If we follow your logic, there is no sense in having elections anywhere, anytime and with anybody as we would all, no matter who we are, vote for what we think. And, in your smart world, can't have that right?

Obviously people are going to vote their own interests. But you convieniently ignore the broader context. If 80 per cent of the population will vote Shiite, but what happens when their interests collide with those of the 15 per cent of the population who have traditionally run the show and who are very nervous about being marginalized? I mean, if you honestly think you can make a valid comparison between Canada's divisions and those in Iraq, well, I'm afraid its going to be hard to take you seriously. Or rather, to start taking you seriously.

[KrustyKidd]

You just can't prove that.

I don't have to as you said;

As far as sending a message to the Saudis, sending a message depends on a few things:

1. The clarity of the message and the target audience's receptivity to it.

2. The target audience's ability to undertsand the message and interpret it in the manner intended by the sender.

3. The audience's willingness or ability to act on the message in the way the sender wants.

The process can break down at any stage, rendering the message ineffective, or even worse, prompting actions on the part of the audience unintended by the sender. Given the ease in which this chain can break down, the notion that any government in its right mind would undertake a massive, expensive military endeavour for the purpose of "sending a message" is mind-bogglingly dumb, especially when other, simpler explanations can be found.

So, all I did was to show you that a process would not have to be as you put forth. Rather, stark, simple realities could be easily explained complete with examples.

Now, be a good boy and prove they did not.

Yes. How many of them are run by jihadists intent on using oil wealth to recreate the Caliphate?

Syria, Iran and Yemen are all ferverently anti US. If you recall, you said ""The instant their regime became a threat to western interests they were out on their asses. "" Well, all of the above are a threat to US interests, as was Russia and presently so is North Korea, China and even France and the EU to some degree. The US does not only act against Talibnan style governments but all governments that threaten their interests.

You've got it backwards: terrorism is a symptom, not the disease.

Terrorism is a tool or weapon that is used. The disease is people who wish to stop freedom.

If they vote for the party that promises, say, a free press, but that party lacks the ability to deliver, then the act of voting for them is purely symbolic. Christ, by your "elections are everything" logic, Iraq was a thriving democracy before the invasion: they had elections, you know.

Parties promise to do things and sometimes cannot as they do not control parliament. We witness it everyday here in Canada. However, they take a position to do something and are expected to move in that direction. So, Canada should self implode with terrorism because the Liberals did not get rid of the GST as promised?

Obviously people are going to vote their own interests. But you convieniently ignore the broader context. If 80 per cent of the population will vote Shiite, but what happens when their interests collide with those of the 15 per cent of the population who have traditionally run the show and who are very nervous about being marginalized? I mean, if you honestly think you can make a valid comparison between Canada's divisions and those in Iraq, well, I'm afraid its going to be hard to take you seriously. Or rather, to start taking you seriously.

Gee, that's about the same figures as English and French Canada. Seems Quebec has a similar argument and here, you think we have a democracy. It really is hard to take you seriously when denial is to you a river in Egypt.

[Riverwind]

Gee, that's about the same figures as English and French Canada. Seems Quebec has a similar argument and here, you think we have a democracy. It really is hard to take you seriously when denial is to you a river in Egypt.

I think the bigger question is whether there will be elections in Iraq five years now - assuming Iraq still exists. Democracy ultimately requires a culture that is receptive to its ideals and willing to live with decisions based on those ideals. I see little evidence of that in Iraq today even if people showed up at the polls (they showed up at the polls when Saddam was in power too).

What would happen in Iraq if the Kurds held a referendum to succeed from Iraq and the no side won by less a percentage. You would likely see violance in the streets as the Kurds tried to clear out enough Arabs to make sure they won the next time. You would never see the begrudging but ultimately peaceful acceptance of the democratic outcome that we saw in Quebec in 1995.

[KrustyKidd]

I see little evidence of that in Iraq today even if people showed up at the polls (they showed up at the polls when Saddam was in power too).

Convoluted logic for sure. In Saddam's time, they were threatened with harm for NOT showing up. Now, they are threatened if the DO. Yet, they showed up in numbers bigger than we did.

What would happen in Iraq if the Kurds held a referendum to succeed from Iraq and the no side won by less a percentage. You would likely see violance in the streets as the Kurds tried to clear out enough Arabs to make sure they won the next time. You would never see the begrudging but ultimately peaceful acceptance of the democratic outcome that we saw in Quebec in 1995.

You might if they were constitutionally permitted to do that however, at this time, I don't believe they are but could be wrong. As per clearing out people, I imagine that the government would send in federal troops to prevent action such as that, same as we would if the Party Q took similar action against immigrants.

[myata]

Sticking feathers up your ass doesn't make you a chicken and holding elections doesn't make you a democracy. Voting for government that cannot provide the basic things governments provide is an excercise in futility.

It looks like that's the main issue the Bushes just can't seem to get a grasp of. For them, it's so very easy: roll the tanks in, blast and blow, get a marionette government in, and hold an election under the gunpoint. Then, instant paradise. Forget centuries old traditions of representative governments starting from local level; forget the culture of responsible government that takes years to set in; forget independent business; forget free press; and so on; they just don't seem to have a clue about the very thing they try to teach to the whole world.

In their long and honorary history of meddling in their (and not so) neighbours's affairs, the US has had 1 (one) case that could be qualified as a success - Japan (although one could argue it was a special case, but not in this thread), out of countless other attempts to teach and democratize. No matter - rephrasing the words of someone famous, it only takes one generation to forget the lessons of the past and get on with the "mission".

[KrustyKidd]

Forget centuries old traditions of representative governments starting from local level; forget the culture of responsible government that takes years to set in; forget independent business; forget free press; and so on; they just don't seem to have a clue about the very thing they try to teach to the whole world.

And, the Flip Flopping Kerry types who don't have a clue believe that Iraq should not be afforded an opportunity to get those years to set in. All the while they were willing to give Saddam a dozen years and more.

[Black Dog]

Now, be a good boy and prove they did not.

You first: oh wait, you can't. 'sfunny: if you had said right off the bat that the U.S. took the Saudis behind closed doors after 9-11 and told them to get serious, I probably would have nodded along. But instead you concoted a ridiculous Rube Goldberg explanation, the only evidence of which is a coincidental bit of timing (of course, that timeframe also includes a deadly seriuous attack on Saudi soil by Al Qaeda, which meant the regime could just as well have been responding to that internal threat, as opposed to that posed by the U.S., which had barely finished disposing of Saddam by the time the Saudi crackdown began). You're comedy gold.

Syria, Iran and Yemen are all ferverently anti US. If you recall, you said ""The instant their regime became a threat to western interests they were out on their asses. "" Well, all of the above are a threat to US interests, as was Russia and presently so is North Korea, China and even France and the EU to some degree. The US does not only act against Talibnan style governments but all governments that threaten their interests.

Anti Us does not equal a threat. You are talking about a theoretical regime that would actively threaten U.S. interests by controlling a significant chunk of the Gulf's oil supply and using that revenue to arm theselves to take over more of the region. I have a feeling that would be seen as a far greater threat to U.S. interests than Syria or Yemen.

Terrorism is a tool or weapon that is used. The disease is people who wish to stop freedom

Or, more realistically, the tool of those protecting their own interests.

Parties promise to do things and sometimes cannot as they do not control parliament. We witness it everyday here in Canada. However, they take a position to do something and are expected to move in that direction. So, Canada should self implode with terrorism because the Liberals did not get rid of the GST as promised?

OK, you really reaching now. Comparingh a stable 130+ year old parlimentary democracy with a a state rife with violent ethnic divisions and long plauged by instability and inner strife where the elected government can't even keep its people from getting murdered in the streets on a daily basis, let alone provide power, jobs....

[myata]

Who exactly is there "to afford" the opportunity? Can you elaborate? And on what authority?

[KrustyKidd]

Who exactly is there "to afford" the opportunity? Can you elaborate? And on what authority?

Left wingers who didn't want the invasion to take place and now want the US to withdraw and leave Iraq to anarchy. Kerryites. On the authority of a changed US government run by what they think will be a party that will take a different course.

You first: oh wait, you can't. 'sfunny: if you had said right off the bat that the U.S. took the Saudis behind closed doors after 9-11 and told them to get serious, I probably would have nodded along. But instead you concoted a ridiculous Rube Goldberg explanation, the only evidence of which is a coincidental bit of timing (of course, that timeframe also includes a deadly seriuous attack on Saudi soil by Al Qaeda, which meant the regime could just as well have been responding to that internal threat, as opposed to that posed by the U.S., which had barely finished disposing of Saddam by the time the Saudi crackdown began). You're comedy gold.

Coincidental? Does the unheard of before now elections and human rights amendments in Saudi Arabia go hand in hand with your 'coincidence' as well? I'm sorry that I don't have a tape recording of top level conversations between US and Saudi officials but, I am sure you would agree that the subject matter of those conversations would be very undesirable for either party to have made public. I gave you two sources and high profile ones at that. You tried to cut Stratfor apart but, seeing as how they advise not only billion dollar companies needing reliable information and diagnosis as well as the US government at times, you found it to be not up to your standards. I again offer them:

Stratfor

The invasion itself helped generate the forces that have Al Qaeda on the defensive now. Iraq is the most strategic country in the Middle East and following the invasion of Iraq, key countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran began to change their policies to support the U.S. against Al Qaeda. The invasion was a good idea and the administration had good reasons for doing it. But they had nothing to do with WMD or Al Qaeda.

We went into Iraq to isolate and frighten the Saudi government into cracking down on the flow of money to Al Qaeda. Bush never answered the question for fear of the international consequences. Early in the war, the President said that the key was shutting down Al Qaeda's financing. Most of the financing came from Saudi Arabia, but the Saudi government was refusing to cooperate. After the invasion of Iraq, they completely changed their position. We did not invade Saudi Arabia directly because of fear that the fall of the Saudi government would disrupt oil supplies: a global disaster.

Stratfor again

By April, the United States had another important consideration on its plate: the deteriorating situation in Saudi Arabia. The United States was the primary cause of that deterioration. It had forced the Saudi government to crack down on al Qaeda in the kingdom, and the radical Islamists were striking back at the regime. An incipient civil war was under way and intensifying. Contrary to myth, the United States did not intervene in Iraq over oil -- anyone looking at U.S. behavior over the past year can see the desultory efforts on behalf of the Iraqi oil industry -- but the United States had to be concerned about the security of oil shipments from Saudi Arabia. If those were disrupted, the global economy would go reeling. It was one thing to put pressure on the Saudis; it was another thing to accept a civil war as the price of that pressure. And it was yet another thing to think calmly about the fall of the House of Saud. But taking Saudi oil off the market was not acceptable.

another one.

It is unclear just how far and how fast the U.S. will go to revamp its alliance with Saudi Arabia or force changes within Saudi society. But any U.S. attempt to “modernize” the kingdom would probably entail reducing the role of traditional Islam and the clergy and increasing the foreign presence there. Such actions could further weaken key pillars of al Saud rule and lead to greater instability. How would the U.S. respond then? What would the fallout be among the world’s billion-plus Muslims, if the U.S. occupied or dismembered Saudi Arabia—the geographic and historic center of Islam?

And this;

Increasingly, the U.S. presence had become a central irritant for those pressing to reform the royal family's strong-armed rule and the fundamentalists who want to replace that government with a religious regime.

"As a society, it is overdue for fundamental political change," said Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute, a Washington-area think tank. "And notwithstanding all the oil they're sitting on top of, we probably don't want to be there when that change occurs."

The U.S. is likely to keep using Iraqi air bases, analysts suggest, and those may be vital if the Bush administration intends to keep pressure on states that it has accused of supporting terrorism and that may now pose the next threat to U.S. interests in the region.

"If you're thinking about blowing up Syria or Iran, all those Iraqi bases are going to be far more useful than a base in Saudi Arabia would have been," said John Pike, director of Globalsecurity.org. "I think the governments of Iran and Syria are going to be very nervous with a large American military presence on their borders."

Oh, and the Saudis figured out elections would be cool on their own too right? And women should have rights too?

a petition signed last month by more than 300 Saudi intellectuals, including women as well as men, calling for far-reaching political reforms.

Two Saudi businesswomen have swept to a surprise victory in chamber of commerce elections in the first polls in which women stood as candidates in the conservative Muslim kingdom.

Anti Us does not equal a threat. You are talking about a theoretical regime that would actively threaten U.S. interests by controlling a significant chunk of the Gulf's oil supply and using that revenue to arm theselves to take over more of the region. I have a feeling that would be seen as a far greater threat to U.S. interests than Syria or Yemen.

In order to be attacked, they would actually have to do something wrong. Not selling oil to the US is not grounds for war. Invading Kuwait would be.

Or, more realistically, the tool of those protecting their own interests.

Yes. Now you get it! Like controlling, being undemocratic so they can be in charge and force their will.

OK, you really reaching now. Comparingh a stable 130+ year old parlimentary democracy with a a state rife with violent ethnic divisions and long plauged by instability and inner strife where the elected government can't even keep its people from getting murdered in the streets on a daily basis, let alone provide power, jobs....

Oh, you mean the country of Iraq which is democratic? You still have not provided proof to support your argument. In it's place, I give another definition.

Democracy (literally "rule by the people", from the Greek δῆμος demos, "people," and κράτος kratos, "rule") is a form of government for a nation state, or for an organization in which all the citizens have a voice in shaping policy. Today democracy is often assumed to be liberal democracy,[7][8] but there are many other varieties and the methods used to govern differ. While the term democracy is often used in the context of a political state, the principles are also applicable to other bodies, such as universities, labor unions, public companies, or civic organizations.

So, considering that all people have a voice (65% participated in the election process, more than our own country) you consider that non democratic simply because a small percentage choose not to engage in this process?

[myata]

Who exactly is there "to afford" the opportunity? Can you elaborate? And on what authority?

Left wingers who didn't want the invasion to take place and now want the US to withdraw and leave Iraq to anarchy. Kerryites. On the authority of a changed US government run by what they think will be a party that will take a different course.

No, I can't comprehend that sophisticated message, can you try again? Who in this world has the authority to set up "democracies" outside of their borders and by force?

If the Bushes & Co took it upon themselves, they failed miserably, as they did before on countless occasions. Obviously, because they do not really understand what democracy is and means. What else is there to prove?

[KrustyKidd]

Myata

No, I can't comprehend that sophisticated message, can you try again?

Sure. Originally, you said;

Myata

It looks like that's the main issue the Bushes just can't seem to get a grasp of. For them, it's so very easy: roll the tanks in, blast and blow, get a marionette government in, and hold an election under the gunpoint. Then, instant paradise. Forget centuries old traditions of representative governments starting from local level; forget the culture of responsible government that takes years to set in; forget independent business; forget free press; and so on; they just don't seem to have a clue about the very thing they try to teach to the whole world.

To sum it up (correct me if I have it wrong) you are saying that the Bush administration does not get it because you can't roll in with an army and set up an instant democracy by force as it takes years for the idea to be understood. To which I replied;

KK

And, the Flip Flopping Kerry types who don't have a clue believe that Iraq should not be afforded an opportunity to get those years to set in. All the while they were willing to give Saddam a dozen years and more.

What that means is that the other side of the coin (anti Bush types who believe he has done wrong in this operation from the start) believe that the US should pull out and that the Iraqi people should not get any time to solidify their democracy. Time which you say is necessary in order for it to work is to be denied to them. In effect, they (Kerryites) would be running counter to what you say is necessary for democracy to be enacted. I note that those types find it in their interest to have democracy fail as they were of the opinion that an evil dictator should have been given more than a dozen years to flaunt UNSC resolutions, torture his own people and be afforded opportunities to invade other countries rather than help the people set up a democracy. These are hardly the arguments of people (Kerryites) who wish to see anything other than a sucessful democracy take place in Iraq.

To which you replied;

Myata

Who exactly is there "to afford" the opportunity? Can you elaborate? And on what authority?

I thought I made that clear when I talked about the Kerryites, those who wish for the US to pull out now on authority from the US people through the electoral system when and if they get voted into power next election. I explain that below;

KK

Left wingers who didn't want the invasion to take place and now want the US to withdraw and leave Iraq to anarchy. Kerryites. On the authority of a changed US government run by what they think will be a party that will take a different course.

Then, you change the tempo of the discussion with;

Myata

Who in this world has the authority to set up "democracies" outside of their borders and by force?

Nobody. The US created the conditions for it in Iraq when they removed an evil dictator under the authority of the United Nations Security Council then, helped the Iraqi people themselves set up the framework for democracy. If you will note, there were no US candidates running in that process - all were Iraqi. At no time was a gun put to anyone’s head to force them to either run for office or …. vote for any particular party.

Now, it would be irresponsible to simply leave Iraq in a vacum as an other dictator would simply come to power so please tell me what sort of government would you have had the US help the Iraqis set up as an alternative to democracy that would have pleased you? Anarchy? Monarchy? Communism? A Dictatorship much like what they just removed? If you were an Iraqi, how would you decide other than by having a vote on it in a democratic election or refferandum?

Myata

If the Bushes & Co took it upon themselves, they failed miserably, as they did before on countless occasions. Obviously, because they do not really understand what democracy is and means. What else is there to prove?

But you said it takes years for it to entrench itself in a society so why do you call it a failure after only three years? As for understanding what democracy is, 65% of the Iraqi people (more than in Canada) took part in the democratic process under threat of death. Seems they understand it a lot more than we do here and, so does Bush as he helped them set it up.

[Black Dog]

Coincidental? Does the unheard of before now elections and human rights amendments in Saudi Arabia go hand in hand with your 'coincidence' as well? I'm sorry that I don't have a tape recording of top level conversations between US and Saudi officials but, I am sure you would agree that the subject matter of those conversations would be very undesirable for either party to have made public. I gave you two sources and high profile ones at that. You tried to cut Stratfor apart but, seeing as how they advise not only billion dollar companies needing reliable information and diagnosis as well as the US government at times, you found it to be not up to your standards. I again offer them

Trying to get your money's worth from your subscription I see.

We went into Iraq to isolate and frighten the Saudi government into cracking down on the flow of money to Al Qaeda. Bush never answered the question for fear of the international consequences. Early in the war, the President said that the key was shutting down Al Qaeda's financing. Most of the financing came from Saudi Arabia, but the Saudi government was refusing to cooperate. After the invasion of Iraq, they completely changed their position. We did not invade Saudi Arabia directly because of fear that the fall of the Saudi government would disrupt oil supplies: a global disaster.

One more time. The underlying premise for the invasion is that the U.S. invaded Iraq because it could not act directly against Saudi Arabia without causing a serious disruption. So really, the base assimption is that an invasion and occupation of SA would precipitate a Islamic backlash, but any military action short of an invasion would not. I think that's a pretty dodgy assumption to make.

By April, the United States had another important consideration on its plate: the deteriorating situation in Saudi Arabia. The United States was the primary cause of that deterioration. It had forced the Saudi government to crack down on al Qaeda in the kingdom, and the radical Islamists were striking back at the regime. An incipient civil war was under way and intensifying.

So he's saying the Iraq invasion precipitated the crackdown which precipitated the instability which made the invasion of Iraq necessary. That's circular reasoning.

Oh, and the Saudis figured out elections would be cool on their own too right? And women should have rights too?

Still awaiting evidence that this was caused by the invasion of Iraq.

In order to be attacked, they would actually have to do something wrong. Not selling oil to the US is not grounds for war. Invading Kuwait would be.

Hmm...according to your buddy above, securing the oil supply is the central plank of U.S. policy in the region. And now you're telling me that a Al Qaeda-esque regime sitting on top of a chunk of the U.S.'s oil supply would elicit no reaction from the them? Make up your mind.

Oh, you mean the country of Iraq which is democratic?

I se eyiour logic(al fallacy).

Democracies have elections

Iraq had an election

Iraq is a democracy.

But hey, for the sake of argument, let's just say Iraq is a democracy: now what?

So, considering that all people have a voice (65% participated in the election process, more than our own country) you consider that non democratic simply because a small percentage choose not to engage in this process?

No. I consider it non-democratic because the election itself is meaningless because it highlights and excrabates the very problems that make Iraq unstable in the first place.

[myata]

Sorry, I don't have forever to go over who said what. The question was very clear: who has the authority to set up "democracies" outside their own borders.

Nobody.

Good that you recognize that - for the record.

The US created the conditions for it in Iraq when they removed an evil dictator under the authority of the United Nations Security Council ...

That an interesting interpretation, even as twisted interpretations go. Perhaps you can elaborate (or provide one of the famous links) where exactly did the UNSC authorised the US "to remove" that "evil dictator"?

then, helped the Iraqi people themselves set up the framework for democracy. If you will note, there were no US candidates running in that process - all were Iraqi. At no time was a gun put to anyone’s head to force them to either run for office or …. vote for any particular party.

Interesting - Iraqi people themselves. What then US administration was doing there in the first 8-12 months after invasion - picking daisies? And no doubt, its the Iraqi people themselves who appointed the provisional government that run the elections? Then, the real question is, if it's the Iraqi themselves, how did the US troops ended up there in the first place? There was any number of "people" in the recent years who got rid of their governments without outside interference (e.g. most of Eastern Europe), they did not require full scale foreign invasion to achieve that. And even if we believed you for a second, there must have been something from the "Iraqi people" to invite the liverators in. Is there a link for that?

Now, it would be irresponsible to simply leave Iraq in a vacum as an other dictator would simply come to power ..

I've no comments there. US started the mess, now it's out of our hands whatever way it goes. God themselves may not know where it all end up.

But you said it takes years for it to entrench itself in a society so why do you call it a failure after only three years?

By invading, Bushes robbed Iraqi people of the opportunity to sort the things out themselves, on their own terms and within their own timeline. It is clear that expectation of instant and glorious setting of democracy was a great delusion. That is the only thing that needs to be proven. Whether it eventually turns out to follow democratic path, or fall under religious authoritarianism, or even split in sevaral parts is very much out of US hands and is left for the history to sort out. The Bushes must be held responsible for the results of their mindless policy.

[KrustyKidd]

Trying to get your money's worth from your subscription I see.

I don't pay. I also take back my offer to provide access to you as well. Stick with truthout, it's a better placebo for you.

Still awaiting evidence that this was caused by the invasion of Iraq

Still awaiting evidence it was not..... As we both know, the Saudis would never admit to being intimidated and, the US would never admit to orchestrating this for the benifit of a non cooperative Saudi regime in need of a kick in the pants. So, I suppose we will only find out in ten or so years in somebody's memoirs. If and when this occurs, I hope that you remember our exchange fondly.

One more time. The underlying premise for the invasion is that the U.S. invaded Iraq because it could not act directly against Saudi Arabia without causing a serious disruption. So really, the base assimption is that an invasion and occupation of SA would precipitate a Islamic backlash, but any military action short of an invasion would not. I think that's a pretty dodgy assumption to make.

Appearing to be willing and able to do it to the Saudis was a threat to their regime. To them, if the US had to conduct an operation (which they easily could, and, had every right to do if the Saudis did not themselves) would be propaganda for Al Queda to rouse the masses with against them. The whole intent of the US was NOT to do this but APPEAR to be frothing to do so. It was designed to get a Saudi reaction, not embroil the US in operations within Saudi Arabia, considered holy land to every Muslim on earth.

So he's saying the Iraq invasion precipitated the crackdown which precipitated the instability which made the invasion of Iraq necessary. That's circular reasoning.

No. The US was confident the Saudis could take AL Queda, it was just their unwillingness to open up the can of worms that made for very uncomfortable times in the kingdom that prevented them from doing so.

Hmm...according to your buddy above, securing the oil supply is the central plank of U.S. policy in the region. And now you're telling me that a Al Qaeda-esque regime sitting on top of a chunk of the U.S.'s oil supply would elicit no reaction from the them? Make up your mind.

If they simply bought and sold oil to whomever and fed their people and lived in peace an harmony with other nations then they would be in no danger from the US. We know however, that if they do manage to take over, that would more than likely not be the case as they persue their vision of a greater Caliphate. If that occurs, and they do, then they would be in danger of being the subject of western action.

I se eyiour logic(al fallacy).

Democracies have elections

Iraq had an election

Iraq is a democracy.

No. Democracy is based on holding elections. If they do not, then they cannot be a democracy. Iraq had elections and the people participated in overwhelming numbers to make their country a democracy of their choice. If you don't think the country is democratic then take it up with the overwhelming majority who made it theirs.

No. I consider it non-democratic because the election itself is meaningless because it highlights and excrabates the very problems that make Iraq unstable in the first place.

Oh. Black Dog, the guy with no letters behind his name says it is not.

Myata's turn;

Sorry, I don't have forever to go over who said what. The question was very clear: who has the authority to set up "democracies" outside their own borders.

Helloooooo Myata. Earth to Myata. Remember you said

No, I can't comprehend that sophisticated message, can you try again?

So I try to make it realllllll slooooooooow so you understand (acting on your request) but you don't have time to read it. Ok.

That an interesting interpretation, even as twisted interpretations go. Perhaps you can elaborate (or provide one of the famous links) where exactly did the UNSC authorised the US "to remove" that "evil dictator"?

When they gave authorization for member states to use whatever means necessary to ensure Iraq complied with 660 and all relevent subsequent resolutions. If that meant that member states had to take out Saddam, nuke the entire country or invade then that was written into the clause by giving no limit as to what action was deemed 'too necessary.'

Interesting - Iraqi people themselves. What then US administration was doing there in the first 8-12 months after invasion - picking daisies? And no doubt, its the Iraqi people themselves who appointed the provisional government that run the elections?

Yes they were alongside the US and UN. As I said, the US created the conditions for democracy. That involved provisional governments and electorial processes which culminated in a free vote which as you might have missed - 65% of the people took part in.

Then, the real question is, if it's the Iraqi themselves, how did the US troops ended up there in the first place? There was any number of "people" in the recent years who got rid of their governments without outside interference (e.g. most of Eastern Europe), they did not require full scale foreign invasion to achieve that. And even if we believed you for a second, there must have been something from the "Iraqi people" to invite the liverators in. Is there a link for that?

They didn't? Saddam was a student of Stalinistic state terror and honed it far better than Joe ever did. Nobody was going to overthrow Saddam (who built the secret police from the bottom up with his relatives)with one person in ten being a paid informent with goon squads rolling up in a neighborhood to cut off some hapless housewife's head of just as a warning to all not to screw with the party. If you, in your hollywood dreamworld think there was a chance, they were too dam slow, the member states beat them to it.

And yes, there are many links for that. Keywords 'saddam hussein, rise to power' 'state sponsored terror in iraq' 'saddam, control/secret poolice' that sort of thing.

I've no comments there. US started the mess, now it's out of our hands whatever way it goes. God themselves may not know where it all end up.

You never answered the question. I surmise that to even attempt to would give away the obvious fact that there has to be some sort of government in Iraq and that it would be irresponsible for the US not to help the Iraqis set it up by not giving people a voice in what it was. Here it is;

The Question Myata won't answer.

what sort of government would you have had the US help the Iraqis set up as an alternative to democracy that would have pleased you? Anarchy? Monarchy? Communism? A Dictatorship much like what they just removed? If you were an Iraqi, how would you decide other than by having a vote on it in a democratic election or refferandum?

By invading, Bushes robbed Iraqi people of the opportunity to sort the things out themselves, on their own terms and within their own timeline. It is clear that expectation of instant and glorious setting of democracy was a great delusion. That is the only thing that needs to be proven. Whether it eventually turns out to follow democratic path, or fall under religious authoritarianism, or even split in sevaral parts is very much out of US hands and is left for the history to sort out. The Bushes must be held responsible for the results of their mindless policy.[/

Mindless to 'realllll sloooooooow' people I suppose.

Oh, possibly you can answer another question that seems to stump anti war types; How come the Iraqi people only get three years of your patience to set up a democracy where people get a say in their future when you were willing to give an evil dictator like Saddam over a dozen years to continue to flaunt UN resolutions, invade other countries, torture his own people, allow his sons to murder and rape whomever they wished and just generally enslave twenty five million people?

[myata]

OK, no I'm not going to reply to your BS (it's not worth the time) but here's some brief factual statements for your future reference:

- UNSC never "authorized" anyone to remove "evil dictator" in Iraq. You can go spend megabytes playing word twisters but it just isn't worth my time.

- Any number of nations were successful in removing their own evil dictators without outside interference. That proves that self liberation is in fact possible.

- There was never any request from legitimate Iraqi national government or representative, to the US, to invade and liberate them (note that no relevant links were provided).

- The above proves that no one has authorized or asked the US to create democracy in Iraq; that it was solely their (US administrations) decision, in which people of Iraq played no part whatsoever; and that your pathetic attempt to stick them in to justify the invasion is, in fact, as incredible and pathetic as it looks.

- Now that US created these volatile and unstable conditions, I do not know what would be the best path to follow. Nor, I imagine, do any number of highly learned pundits. So there's nothing wrong with being honest. Now answering you trickster question, I would US to stay away from Iraq (i.e. leave them alone) and save Iraqis the trouble of being helped in establishing their own government. There, it can't be made any clearer, can it?

- Finally, because, as per above, the US took it entirely upon themselves to invade a country and control it, the time is ticking for them and not for the Iraqi people whose nation existed long before the US and will probably last long thereafter. Nearly four years of destruction, anarchy, death, corruption as a direct result of someone's mindless action is more than enough to pass the judgement. Whatever happens in the future has little to do with that.

[Black Dog]

I don't pay. I also take back my offer to provide access to you as well. Stick with truthout, it's a better placebo for you.

Translation "Wahhhhh!!!" *stomp stomp stomp* SLAM!

I am glad to hear you don't shell out for that rubbish, though.

Still awaiting evidence it was not..... As we both know, the Saudis would never admit to being intimidated and, the US would never admit to orchestrating this for the benifit of a non cooperative Saudi regime in need of a kick in the pants. So, I suppose we will only find out in ten or so years in somebody's memoirs. If and when this occurs, I hope that you remember our exchange fondly.

Well, I don't have to prove it was not. You're the one saying: "Cum hoc, ergo propter hoc."

Appearing to be willing and able to do it to the Saudis was a threat to their regime. To them, if the US had to conduct an operation (which they easily could, and, had every right to do if the Saudis did not themselves) would be propaganda for Al Queda to rouse the masses with against them. The whole intent of the US was NOT to do this but APPEAR to be frothing to do so. It was designed to get a Saudi reaction, not embroil the US in operations within Saudi Arabia, considered holy land to every Muslim on earth.

Oh I'm aware of that. I'm also aware at how ridiculous it is. Your postulating some weird kabuki with the Americans engaging in an expensive war to pretend to threaten the Saudis with a military intervention the Americans know they couldn't possibly carry out without making the situation worse, and the Saudis reacting as though they actually believed the Americans would attack even though they would know as well as anyone how implausible the threat of American military intervention in SA actually was. Of course, the real kicker is that everyone played their roles to perfection (well, except the scene-stealing Iraqis and the uncredited Iranians).

It makes me wonder if you've thought this through or if you were dazzled by STRATFOR's nifty acronym and media plaudits. But hey, maybe I'm wrong: maybe the Americans had a better read on how the Saudi public would react to a military intervention than the Saudi leaders (who, despite knowing what a stable flow of oil would mean to the U.S. knuckled under to the holow, who were actually afraid that a U.S. intervention would lead to their downfall, yet didn't seem to harbour the same fears when it came to cracking down on Al Qaeda, even though, according to your own sources, the resulting crackdown actually intensified the "incipient civil war".

If they simply bought and sold oil to whomever and fed their people and lived in peace an harmony with other nations then they would be in no danger from the US. We know however, that if they do manage to take over, that would more than likely not be the case as they persue their vision of a greater Caliphate. If that occurs, and they do, then they would be in danger of being the subject of western action.

I'm glad to see you've come around to my way of thinking. It took a long time, but you got there in the end. To sum up: there's no danger that a radical Islamist regime would, in you words:

topple weak regimes and take control. Then...trade petro dollars for weapons to take other countries with. Then, when they have recreated the former Caliphate (which stretched from Spain to the Pacific) they (would) take control world markets in trade and energy. While enforcing their rule of law on those they have taken over both militarily, subverted or simply ground into submission economicly.

Because any aggressive action that would threaten market stability (liek, oh, let's say, using petro dollars to fund a military build up to take over other oil-rich nations) would result in a swift and decisive intervention by the west (read: America) and/or possibly others. What's really sad, though, is that the U.S. intervention in Iraq has made military action against such rouge states less likely due to both political and practical considerations.

No. Democracy is based on holding elections. If they do not, then they cannot be a democracy. Iraq had elections and the people participated in overwhelming numbers to make their country a democracy of their choice. If you don't think the country is democratic then take it up with the overwhelming majority who made it theirs.

That's another patented KK logical fallacy. Democracies have elections, but elections don't make a democracy. Tel me: if the people of Iraq voted in overwhelming numbers to establish a regime dedicated to restablishing the Caliophate by force of arms, would you accept that as a positive result for the west? (Remember: your entire democratization argument rests on the assumption that democracy is ipso facto beneficial to U.S. interests.

Someone else already summed this up here. And I quote::

The main problem in Iraq is that the people are tribal. In a democratic system, people will vote along tribal lines because tribal ethics require it. All a particular clan has to do is put forward a candidate, and the members of that clan can all be expected to support him. What this means is that the most populous clan will win every election.

This is a problem because tribal ethics also demand that tribal members further the interests of their tribe, even at the expense of others. What this means is that the newly elected tribal government will use the awesome power of central government to further their own tribal interests at the expense of others. This might mean extra taxes for other tribes, the exclusion of other tribes from civil service positions, punitive business legislation designed to force the businesses of other clans from the marketplace, and it might even go so far as ethnic cleansing and genocide.

....

Democracy has not produced violence and oppression on such a massive scale in Western societies because those societies are not organised on the basis of tribal and clan allegiance. The largest unit of kinship in Western society is generally the nuclear family, and the nearer branches of the extended family. But the Arab culture and society is not the same, and to pretend it is will only lead to further bloodshed and suffering.

The folly of the US administration and of the UN is to believe that Arabs will cast off their millenia-old culture and society and adopt a Western one that, by all accounts, they despise. Questions of whether they should or should not are irrelevant, the fact is that they won't, and any enterprise made on the assumption that they will is doomed to failure.

Oh. Black Dog, the guy with no letters behind his name says it is not.

Well, since you've been reduced to pathetic appeals to authority, it's safe to say we've nothing more to discuss. I shan't address this subject with you again.

[KrustyKidd]

OK, no I'm not going to reply to your BS (it's not worth the time) but here's some brief factual statements for your future reference:

Well then stop asking me to simplify perfectly striaghtforward answers then. It seems obvious you are doing that just to be annoying as you demand it then discard it when given so please, grow up.

- UNSC never "authorized" anyone to remove "evil dictator" in Iraq. You can go spend megabytes playing word twisters but it just isn't worth my time.

Then perhaps you would explain what the limitations on 'any means necessary' are then.

- Any number of nations were successful in removing their own evil dictators without outside interference. That proves that self liberation is in fact possible.

Yes, when pigs fly. Key point is how many of them had one in ten people on the payroll as an informent? Not a police officer, doctor, military officer but paid spy with one purpose - to turn in people for torture.

- There was never any request from legitimate Iraqi national government or representative, to the US, to invade and liberate them (note that no relevant links were provided).

You never do supply links the quote function eludes you as well so no surprise there. If I recall, the legitimate Iraqi government was flaunting UN resolutions and paved the way for a necessary means to be taken to put them in complience with those resolutions.

- The above proves that no one has authorized or asked the US to create democracy in Iraq; that it was solely their (US administrations) decision, in which people of Iraq played no part whatsoever; and that your pathetic attempt to stick them in to justify the invasion is, in fact, as incredible and pathetic as it looks.

Huh? You couldn't answer the question of what type of government the Iraqis should have had so, I take it that it should be up to them to decide themselves. That's ok with you right? I mean, holding an election is not such an absurd idea to you so they can determine which way they wish to go?

- Now that US created these volatile and unstable conditions, I do not know what would be the best path to follow. Nor, I imagine, do any number of highly learned pundits. So there's nothing wrong with being honest. Now answering you trickster question, I would US to stay away from Iraq (i.e. leave them alone) and save Iraqis the trouble of being helped in establishing their own government. There, it can't be made any clearer, can it?

IOWs you would welcome a repressive government that would enslave the country and kill ethnicly different people as that is a certainty to happen without a representative government.

- Finally, because, as per above, the US took it entirely upon themselves to invade a country and control it, the time is ticking for them and not for the Iraqi people whose nation existed long before the US and will probably last long thereafter.

Iraq - 1932

USA - 1776

Get your facts straight.

Nearly four years of destruction, anarchy, death, corruption as a direct result of someone's mindless action is more than enough to pass the judgement. Whatever happens in the future has little to do with that.

And a lot less than Saddam caused on average in his day to day administration of Iraq. Yes, if that is the way you keep score then it was worth it definitely.

And, how come the Iraqi people only get three years of your patience to set up a democracy where people get a say in their future when you were willing to give an evil dictator like Saddam over a dozen years to continue to flaunt UN resolutions, invade other countries, torture his own people, allow his sons to murder and rape whomever they wished and just generally enslave twenty five million people?

[KrustyKidd]

Translation "Wahhhhh!!!" *stomp stomp stomp* SLAM!

No. Translation is no I do not pay for it as it is a reciprocal deal and I know now for sure that you you are not interested in information from impartial intelligence services when they do not support your cemented in place views.

Oh I'm aware of that. I'm also aware at how ridiculous it is. Your postulating some weird kabuki with the Americans engaging in an expensive war to pretend to threaten the Saudis with a military intervention the Americans know they couldn't possibly carry out without making the situation worse, and the Saudis reacting as though they actually believed the Americans would attack even though they would know as well as anyone how implausible the threat of American military intervention in SA actually was. Of course, the real kicker is that everyone played their roles to perfection (well, except the scene-stealing Iraqis and the uncredited Iranians).

You do understand a bit I can see. However, you miss the point that the war was not a one reason deal. This was on of the reasons is all. Maybe a stronger one, maybe a weaker one than many of the others. That's why I find it disproportionate how you spend much of the bandwidth picking this one apart when you should be defending your point about democracy.

As for the real kickers, yes, the Iranians did very well here but, to them as you know, even with the 'Mad Hatter' supposedly in charge, they are no fools and played out a bad hand very well. The strength of the insurgency and the accelerating snowball effect that terrorism can play caught them by surprise as well.

It makes me wonder if you've thought this through or if you were dazzled by STRATFOR's nifty acronym and media plaudits. But hey, maybe I'm wrong: maybe the Americans had a better read on how the Saudi public would react to a military intervention than the Saudi leaders (who, despite knowing what a stable flow of oil would mean to the U.S. knuckled under to the holow, who were actually afraid that a U.S. intervention would lead to their downfall, yet didn't seem to harbour the same fears when it came to cracking down on Al Qaeda, even though, according to your own sources, the resulting crackdown actually intensified the "incipient civil war".

Stratfor is impartial. You and Lonius use them as quoting sources to support your points. Al Qeda is a force that has to be dealt with even though is is extreme;ly uncomfortable to the Royal House.

I'm glad to see you've come around to my way of thinking. It took a long time, but you got there in the end. To sum up: there's no danger that a radical Islamist regime would, in you words:

Try to use logic and fact Black Dog. The first word was 'if' Meaning that if your argument is supported by fact and logic you wouldn't have to twist or omit a word in order to make your point.

Because any aggressive action that would threaten market stability (liek, oh, let's say, using petro dollars to fund a military build up to take over other oil-rich nations) would result in a swift and decisive intervention by the west (read: America) and/or possibly others. What's really sad, though, is that the U.S. intervention in Iraq has made military action against such rouge states less likely due to both political and practical considerations.

Like what? Iran taking over the Staights of Homuz? Devastated by air power. Iran sending converntional forces into Iraq? Air power. Syria marshalling Jihadists on their border to send them into Iraq? Special Forces and air power. Yes, the US has suddenly run out of Tomahawks.

That's another patented KK logical fallacy. Democracies have elections, but elections don't make a democracy. Tel me: if the people of Iraq voted in overwhelming numbers to establish a regime dedicated to restablishing the Caliophate by force of arms, would you accept that as a positive result for the west?

I recognize Hamas as the democraticly elected government of the Palesinians. You don't? Hell, they can't support the people nor rule their land but they are the government.

(Remember: your entire democratization argument rests on the assumption that democracy is ipso facto beneficial to U.S. interests.

Huh? Never said that. If they elect a jihadist organization like Hamas or hezbollah then so be it. Fair game and then they too can be on the list of the 'Axis of Evil' but, that's their people's choice.

Well, since you've been reduced to pathetic appeals to authority, it's safe to say we've nothing more to discuss. I shan't address this subject with you again.

I must admit, you're growing up. That was a more gracious exit of a losing argument than your last one of

Fuck this.

[myata]

You, big lovers of democracy still aren't getting it, or just being "deliberately obtuse"? It's not up to me, nor up to you, to tell what kind of government Iraq should have. Then,

- bs;

- Checkhoslovakia; Hungary; Poland; Estonia; Lithuania; and many more;

- there can't be a link for something that never existed;

- see above + perhaps you wanted (but forgot) to qualify that by "holding elections" you mean "holding elections in the country occupied by foreign troops and under their puppet government"?

- see my earlier posts;

- try working on spelling "Mesopotamia".

- probably factually incorrect and definitely irrelevant;

- see my earlier post;