is here. (assuming this is true)

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3275886,00.html


Two events have happened today..

One: Israel has confirmed that Iranian Revolutionary Guard are operating inside Lebanon/Syria in attacks on Israel.

Two: This ultimatium.


When, not IF, Israel attacks Syria. Iran will declare war on Israel as dictated by the Iranian Syrian defense pact.
http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=11562

Iran will attempt to keep US bogged down by causing a general uprising in the Shia community to occur... and it will..

We will respond most likely slowly at first, but by the end of the summer we will be bombing Tehran...

Wether Turkey?

Its coming, I really feel this is the start of WW3. Call me crazy but in this case I would rather be wrong than right.

This is quickly becoming a serious situation. We are definately bogged down in Iraq and could very easily become even more so. But hey, thats what happens when you spread democracy with the barrel of a gun.

Its amazing the lack of thought that went into the whole middle east democracy initiative. Before the initiative groups like Hamas, Hezbollah that were previously terror groups have now been democratically elected to be the most influential parts of legitimate governments. In Lebanon Hezbollah is acting separate from the army and on its own militarily in this war, showing that overall the power in the lebanese government is held by Hezbollah or in simple terms by Iran.

We are caught in the middle of a situation that we have had a major hand in creating and its not good.

It's been coming far longer than we've been in Iraq. Infact if we'd have finished up in the early 90's this would likely have been averted.

Sadly peacniks with their head up their ass's and hand's deep in the pockets of corruption have let this stew far toolong.

Focking hand tying sobs...

wtg

Fandros

Syria now giving full support to Lebanon.

Heat'em up, it's all inc now.

I wonder how far Syria will go to further destablize the area. Would be ugly if they ended up using the WMD's some claim they have from Iraq.

Would be majorly stupid on Syria's part to prove those folks right.

Fandros

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/15047532.htm

Quick guide to the forces behind Hezbollah (sp)

Fandros

Just a hunch, but I bet ya that a cruise missile can find Assad's palace as easily as Hussein's palaces were located.

I love that we're financing both sides of the war--oil and taxes!

Democracy is not the problem. It's a treatment. It's a doorway that these regimes have finally past through so they can take responsibility for their actions. The road to a neighbor friendly, civil and democratic socity for the middle eastearn countries has been ignored for 60 years.

No longer can we tolerate these terrorist regimes. Yes Germany loved and elected Hitler. And we tolerated it for far too long. Right now there's an opportunity for the world to come together and fix this once and for all. Sadly, it ain't going to happen. Only 4 countries in the UN (the US, the UK, the Czechs, and Germany) could even agree to call terrorism what it is, illegal and inhumane warfare. As Fanny said, corruption at the deepest levels.

Democracy at the end of the gun barrel? Aside from the fact we didn't stick a gun to anyone's head in Palestine. Screw them. (see how I use it appropriately L2.)

The "poor" Palestinians ? They elected Hamas as their political leadership so they're going to have to take responsibility for their actions now on the world stage. Just as Germany had to atone for Hitler. For far too long the Palistinians ate at the table of handouts because they were the poor and downtrodden. No more. They get what comes to them now.

Hizbollah? The same thing, only now we have what's left of the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon so we have to help them keep that going. And if you want to condemn Bush for anything, he let this opportunity slide. But again, what can you do when you only have a few friends in the world who give a damn to say and do the right things.

It's going to be hard. It's going to be ugly. It may even fail. But it's not democracy's fault. It's the best hope any of these people.

Bush and anyone else who I have read/listened to that has supported these initiatives never said it was going to be easy. And no one has ever said getting a democracy in these regimes was going to be the end all be all solution. If your blogs and anti-Bush ranting websites and media outlets give you that impression, they're blattant liars.

Democracy is a step on a long road that was for too long ignored. The medicine is going to hurt now. It's time for Hamas and Hizbollah to be taken out.

As they say, rubble makes no trouble.

The Royal Navy are seading two ships to Lebanon.

Civis Sum Britannica, indeed.

Though I don't think there's any need for that WW3 panic shit just yet. Get a grip of yourselves. LL, you're usually a bit more level headed. And Ibudin, you're like a headless chicken. It'll solve itself out, no one gives a shit about Lebanon.

Calm down guys.

Bush and anyone else who I have read/listened to that has supported these initiatives never said it was going to be easy.


"We will be greeted as liberators"

They sure did think it was going to be easy.

ARMAGEDON! Your more than likely right Halo. /puts head on backwards.

This doesnt remind you of Aug 1914 Halo?

Dolce Et Decorum Est?

No, it doesn't mirror August of 1914 in that the web of mutual defensive pacts doesn't exist (though the behavior of Wilhelm Germany and the modern US have a lot of parallels .. ). Neither Russia or China is likely to militarily stand beside any state in opposition to US-Israel and we're unlikely to do the converse -- I'd be far more worried about a long and bloody series of proxy-wars like back in the 70s and 80s.

All evidence indicates we did not learn from past experience.

They sure did think it was going to be easy.Only if you troll around in the mud of the blogosphere reading soundbites taken out of context.

Yeah I'm sure you'll find a Cheney quote from some little watched sunday morning talk show were his one sentence response was "They'll worship the dirt we walk on!" that he managed to spurt out between his heart defibulations.
"You know, wars are unpredictable and post-war recoveries are unpredictable. Most countries have a very difficult time. I've been reading statements about how long it took the United States to move towards a democracy and history books on Japan and Germany, and some of the Eastern European countries. It's never been easy, it's always difficult, it's frequently violent and sometimes it's even ugly. It was Jefferson who said that one ought not to expect to be transported towards democracy on a feather bed."True.

"The Iraqi people understand what this crisis is about. Like the people of France in the 1940s, they view us as their hoped-for liberator. They know that America will not come as a conqueror. Our plan, as President Bush has said, is to remain as long as necessary, and not one day more. And the Iraqis also recognize that the economic and political reconstruction of their country will be difficult. It will take their best efforts with the help of the United States and our coalition partners. But they are driven by the dream of a just and democratic society in Iraq." True.

"We can't be sure that the Iraqi people will welcome us as liberators, although based on what Iraqi-Americans told me in Detroit a week ago, many of them - most of them with families in Iraq - I am reasonably certain that they will greet us as liberators, and that will help us to keep requirements down. In short, we don't know what the requirement will be, but we can say with reasonable confidence that the notion of hundreds of thousands of American troops is way off the mark."True.

"Until the regime is gone it's going to be very hard to do anything. Even in cities that are liberated. "True.

"I hope we would be seen as liberators. I think that might well be the case. The Iraqi people must be getting tired of living under a dictatorial regime that has used its wealth, the wealth of its people, to develop weapons of mass destruction, to invade neighbors, to threaten the world and to bring this crisis down on the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people are hurting. And if only that $20 billion a year of oil revenue that is available to it would be used for good and not evil, would be used to build the country rather than build weapons, then perhaps if Iraqi people saw that that situation was going to change, they might welcome that change rather than resist it."True.

Nobody wants to live under a brutal dictatorship. And the people of Afghanistan view the United States as liberators...Now that's not to predict what the ultimate outcome could be if we go to war, because nobody is saying a war will not have difficulties and there would not be casualties. My point is, the likelihood is much more like Afghanistan, where the people who live right now under a brutal dictator will view America as liberators, not conquerors." True.

We're at what, 3.5 years since the invasion? They have a fully democractic government under immense and devastating foreign and internal strife in a region with zero friendly democractic neighbors. You should be rejoicing their success this far. I do.

This is funny:

During a press conference today at the G8 summit in Russia, President Bush told President Vladimir Putin that Americans want Russia to develop a free press and free religion “like Iraq.” To laughter and applause, Putin responded: “We certainly would not want to have same kind of democracy as they have in Iraq, quite honestly.”

Just some highlights from the Russert interview

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/cheneymeetthepress.htm

Interview with Vice-President Dick Cheney, NBC, "Meet the Press," Transcript for March 16, 2003.
MR. RUSSERT: The Los Angeles Times wrote an editorial about the administration and its rationale for war. And let me read it to you and give you a chance to respond: “The Bush administration’s months of attempts to justify quick military action against Iraq have been confusing and unfocused. It kept giving different reasons for invasion. First, it was to disarm Hussein and get him out. Then, as allies got nervous about outside nations deciding ‘regime change,’ the administration for a while rightly stressed disarmament only. Next, the administration was talking about ‘nation-building’ and using Iraq as the cornerstone of creating democracy in the Arab/Muslim world. And that would probably mean U.S. occupation of Iraq for some unspecified time, at open-ended cost. Then, another tactic: The administration tried mightily, and failed, to show a connection between Hussein and the 9/11 perpetrators, Al Qaeda. Had there been real evidence that Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks, Americans would have lined up in support of retaliation.”

What do you think is the most important rationale for going to war with Iraq?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I think I’ve just given it, Tim, in terms of the combination of his development and use of chemical weapons, his development of biological weapons, his pursuit of nuclear weapons.

>break

MR. RUSSERT: “Imperialist power,” “moving willy-nilly,” “taking down governments.” Is that how we’re going to be perceived this time?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I hope not, Tim. Of course, in ’91, there was a general consensus that we’d gone as far as we should. We’d achieved our objectives when we liberated Kuwait and that we shouldn’t go on to Baghdad. But there were several assumptions that was based on. One that all those U.N. Security Council resolutions would be enforced. None of them has been. That’s the major difference. And it was based on the proposition that Saddam Hussein probably wouldn’t survive. Most of the experts believed based upon the severe drubbing we administered to his forces in Kuwait that he was likely to be overthrown or ousted. Of course, that didn’t happen. He’s proven to be a much tougher customer than anybody expected.

We’re now faced with a situation, especially in the aftermath of 9/11, where the threat to the United States is increasing. And over time, given Saddam’s posture there, given the fact that he has a significant flow of cash as a result of the oil production of Iraq, it’s only a matter of time until he acquires nuclear weapons. And in light of that, we have to be prepared, I think, to take the action that is being contemplated. Doesn’t insist that he be disarmed and if the U.N. won’t do it, then the United States and other partners of the coalition will have to do that.

Now, I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. And the president’s made it very clear that our purpose there is, if we are forced to do this, will in fact be to stand up a government that’s representative of the Iraqi people, hopefully democratic due respect for human rights, and it, obviously, involves a major commitment by the United States, but we think it’s a commitment worth making. And we don’t have the option anymore of simply laying back and hoping that events in Iraq will not constitute a threat to the U.S. Clearly, 12 years after the Gulf War, we’re back in a situation where he does constitute a threat.

<break

MR. RUSSERT: If your analysis is not correct, and we’re not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I’ve talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. The president and I have met with them, various groups and individuals, people who have devoted their lives from the outside to trying to change things inside Iraq. And like Kanan Makiya who’s a professor at Brandeis, but an Iraqi, he’s written great books about the subject, knows the country intimately, and is a part of the democratic opposition and resistance. The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.

>break

MR. RUSSERT: The army’s top general said that we would have to have several hundred thousand troops there for several years in order to maintain stability.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I disagree. We need, obviously, a large force and we’ve deployed a large force. To prevail, from a military standpoint, to achieve our objectives, we will need a significant presence there until such time as we can turn things over to the Iraqis themselves. But to suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don’t think is accurate. I think that’s an overstatement.

>break

MR. RUSSERT: But a lot of countries, Mr. Vice President, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, the neighbors of Saddam, other than Kuwait, are not supportive.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I think we will find, Tim, that if in fact we have to do this with military force that there will be sighs of relief in many quarters in the Middle East that the United States finally followed through and deal effectively with what they all perceive to be a major threat, but they’re all reluctant to stand up if Saddam’s still in power and if there’s a possibility he will survive once again to threaten them and to threaten their region. So for the United States to follow through here, be determined, be decisive, do exactly what we said we were going to do, I think we’ll find we’ve got far more friends out there than many people think.

I hate to say it but my oil stocks are doing FABULOUSLY atm..... :) I still think oil will hit 100 bucks a barrel by December'ish.

In all honesty, the main reason I'm not worried about Iran's nuclear capability is because Isreal will take it out if it gets to close to being a problem....

There is a saying that goes, "better to speak softly and carry a big stick"... I believe that Isreal is about to introduce several Arab nations to the working end of that stick.

Isreal has been fighting off and on for , well , since they have been a country. The world has not ended and world war has not erupted.

They will kick some ass, take some names, and then go back to the negotiating table.... I hate to sound like some sort of intellectual but " The only time for negotiations is when you have a knife to your opponents throat"....

I hate to say it but my oil stocks are doing FABULOUSLY atm

So are Cheney's.

But to suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don’t think is accurate. I think that’s an overstatement.Correct me if I'm wrong, but the US has not had more than 200k troops in Iraq since the invasion (if even then.) Current levels are around 130k I think and going below 100k by year's end.

From the LA Times 7/15/2006

It seemed like a routine question, one that military leaders involved in prosecuting the war in Iraq must ask themselves with some regularity: Is the U.S. winning?

But for Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff known for his straight-shooting bluntness, it proved a hard one to answer.
During a Capitol Hill briefing for an audience mostly of congressional aides, Schoomaker paused for more than 10 seconds after he was asked the question — lips pursed and brow furrowed — before venturing:
"I think I would answer that by telling you I don't think we're losing."

It was a small but telling window into the thinking of the Army's top uniformed officer and one of the military's most important commanders: Despite the progress being made by the new Iraqi government and the continuing improvement of local security forces, the outcome in Iraq, in many ways, is growing more uncertain by the day.

"The challenge … is becoming more complex, and it's going to continue to be," Schoomaker mused. "That's why I'll tell you I think we're closer to the beginning than we are to the end of all this."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the US has not had more than 200k troops in Iraq since the invasion (if even then.) Current levels are around 130k I think and going below 100k by year's end.

I believe you are correct on those figures Akipt. However, the Army's top general was saying what the figure should be after Saddam was removed to control the country and maintain stability, in his opinion; you have to wonder what the difference might have been if we had 200k troops on the ground after Baghdad fell, in terms of the insurgency.

There was no guarentee that it would have ever worked.. even under perfect conditions.

But Iraq should have been quarentened for 3 months after the invasion. The Syrian and Iraqi border should have been locked tight and and as many weapons gathered up and destroyed as possible. The lawlessness of the looting was not as Rumsfeld said as a byproduct of democracy, but a symbol of the reign of chaos that emerged because of our lack of preparedness for the post invasion realities.

Sorry LL it doesn't sound remotely like 1914. No one has the same sort of interest in the region as the Russians and Austrians did the Balkans, or the US and Russia did just 40 years ago. There is no great casus belli needed to take care of Iran, and the drive of Israel, as determined and capable as it is, has neither the means nor the manpower to conquer all of the middle east. China and Russia will not pour in to Iran or Lebanon's defence with millions of troops, and another Anglo-American army of occupation is certainly not to the taste of politicians at Whitehall or the Whitehouse right now.

It sounds harsh, but I say it once again, no one gives a shit about Lebanon.
This'll just be "another one of those crisis."

I believe you are correct on those figures Akipt. However, the Army's top general was saying what the figure should be after Saddam was removed to control the country and maintain stability, in his opinion; you have to wonder what the difference might have been if we had 200k troops on the ground after Baghdad fell, in terms of the insurgency. Oh I see. Some people here have confused liberation with democracy.

Democracy is not an event. It's a process. A long and sometimes troubled road, depending on how well your friends and allies are true.

Democracy is not an event. It's a process. A long and sometimes troubled road, depending on how well your friends and allies are true.

How come nobody was saying this in 2003?

Oh I know.. because there was a war to sell.

How come nobody was saying this in 2003?They were. You just had your head in the mud. I've already posted many quotes from before the invasion (guess you dismissed those) ... here's another in 11/2003 where Bush outlined his Middle Eastern 'Great Democracy Initiative' as its apparently called.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031106-2.html

Nov. 2003
As we watch and encourage reforms in the region, we are mindful that modernization is not the same as Westernization. Representative governments in the Middle East will reflect their own cultures. They will not, and should not, look like us. Democratic nations may be constitutional monarchies, federal republics, or parliamentary systems. And working democracies always need time to develop -- as did our own. We've taken a 200-year journey toward inclusion and justice -- and this makes us patient and understanding as other nations are at different stages of this journey.
...
In Iraq, the Coalition Provisional Authority and the Iraqi Governing Council are also working together to build a democracy -- and after three decades of tyranny, this work is not easy. The former dictator ruled by terror and treachery, and left deeply ingrained habits of fear and distrust. Remnants of his regime, joined by foreign terrorists, continue their battle against order and against civilization.
...
This is a massive and difficult undertaking -- it is worth our effort, it is worth our sacrifice, because we know the stakes. The failure of Iraqi democracy would embolden terrorists around the world, increase dangers to the American people, and extinguish the hopes of millions in the region. Iraqi democracy will succeed -- and that success will send forth the news, from Damascus to Teheran -- that freedom can be the future of every nation.
...
Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe -- because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export. And with the spread of weapons that can bring catastrophic harm to our country and to our friends, it would be reckless to accept the status quo.

Oh nice.. AFTER the invasion suddenly we realized >shock< it wasnt going to be easy.. but going in it was flowers in the street and an easy time.

btw.. pop quiz.. How many times, and when did Cheney say "The resistance is on its final throes."

Just admit that they were wrong Akipt... They havent had a grip on events since we ended the war. Wtf was "Mission Accomplished" all about? Why have their assessments of the situation been consistantly wrong? I know its hard to admit, but they have bungled their way into a good portion of the mess we find ourselves in today.

Mission Accomplished was a huge mistake I bet Bush wishes he never did say that. Saying, Task one of many is complete, would of been a more accurate statement. Whether the administration said this would be easy and over with fast (pre invasion) is irrelevant at this point. I remember saying to my coworkers..this will be 10+ years before this over, longbefore we invaded and most of them agreed. Can't believe anyone would think it would be faster than that. Boots on the ground usually means a long as time before they are off the ground.

We Win!

WASHINGTON, DC—Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Monday that escalating violence in Iraq demonstrates that the Iraqi population is now capable of waging the Iraq war without outside military aid, and pronounced the American mission there "a complete success."

Rumsfeld lauds Iraqis' progress in making war.
"Over the last month, the Iraqis have been fighting like you wouldn't believe," said Rumsfeld in a press conference at the Pentagon. "New Iraqis are joining the war every day—so many, in fact, that we don't know where they all came from. It's almost as if they came out of nowhere."
"The scope and intensity of the combat in Iraq is such that I believe the presence of American forces in the country will no longer be required to help the Iraqi people plummet into meaningless violence," Rumsfeld added.
Rumsfeld had harsh words for what he called the "cowardly and small-minded opposition" to American involvement in the region.

"Critics of this war who said we couldn't inspire the Iraqi people to stand up and fight for themselves have been proven wrong," Rumsfeld said, gesturing toward a map displaying conflict across the entire nation. "There was the stubborn perception that after greeting us as liberators, the Iraqis had no fight in them, and couldn't effectively defend their interests. Without our presence on their soil, I doubt most Iraqis would ever have lifted a finger or picked up a gun at all. Now, there's almost no stopping them."

A Department of Defense analysis released Monday gave the Iraqi combatants high marks for morale, tenacity, and unit cohesiveness, and noted "outstanding improvement" in the following areas: improvised explosive manufacturing, roadside-bomb concealment, sniping, checkpoint attacking, civilian massacres, mosque destruction, and guerrilla-style ambush.

"The average Iraqi fighter has made remarkable progress and we are very proud," said Lt. Col. Bailey Whitman, a spokesman for coalition forces stationed in Baghdad. "In the past several weeks, people across Iraq have, in a systematic way unthinkable just three years ago, overrun both Shi'a and Sunni neighborhoods with devastating results. This is an out-and-out success by the standards of the modern American military."

The lieutenant colonel's remarks were cut short when a rocket-propelled grenade detonated outside his briefing room, spraying him with dust and pulverized glass. Brushing off his jacket, Whitman gestured to the jagged gash in the wall and smiled. "The Iraqis are doing just fine on their own."

Iraqi citizens, inspired by the U.S. military presence, prepare for war.
According to Commanding General George W. Casey, the Iraqi people are filling their role as models for independence in the Middle East. "We helped them get rid of a dictator, they held successful elections, they're writing a constitution, and, just like in our Civil War, brother has taken up arms against brother," Casey said. "After five to 10 years of unspeakable brutality and bloodshed, they'll be well on their way to a full-fledged democracy."
Rumsfeld, however, sought to reassure the Iraqi people that despite their rapid improvement, the U.S. would not abandon them.

"We've accomplished a lot," Rumsfeld said. "But there's still so much to take from the people of this rich country, and we're not going to pack up and leave just because they're doing so well on their own. We look forward to working very, very closely with Iraq, once there's a friendly government in place that we can do business with."

Added Rumsfeld: "We plan to be around for a long, long time."

Oh nice.. AFTER the invasion suddenly we realized >shock< it wasnt going to be easy.. but going in it was flowers in the street and an easy time.

/sigh

http://www.ayonae.ro/showpost.php?p=110937&postcount=15

edit:

re: Mission Accomplished, yeah Ibudin, I agree. Considering various estimates of 10-15k dead going into Baghdad (even without their use of alleged WMD) ... and coming out with fewer than 1000, I'm sure everyone was still caught up in the euphoria of the moment. Not excusing it, it was simply one of the dumbest political bets ever made. And it was definitely political, from the flight in to the huge sign behind him.

So has anyone actually read his speech he gave on the flight deck or have you just stared dumbfounded at the sign behind him?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/01/iraq/main551946.shtml

We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We are pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. ... The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. And then we will leave — and we will leave behind a free Iraq.

Nobody is saying the didnt say "Oh yea.. its going to be difficult ahead". What else are they going to say? "Cakewalk folks!"? Saying "we have tough work ahead" is virtually cliche. But the basic fact is they were not, and some degree still are not prepared for the reality of the situation.

WTF is wrong with you? Nobody is saying the didnt say "Oh yea.. its going to be difficult ahead". AFTER the invasion suddenly we realized >shock< it wasnt going to be easy.. but going in it was flowers in the street and an easy time.Of course war is hell, but it's apparently even more so for the mental state of smug armchair generals.


.

Of course war is hell, but it's apparently even more so for the mental state of smug armchair generals.

This administration seems to be full of smug armchair generals. Numerous times they have ignored the recommendations of the Generals that were/are given the task of fighting the war they started. Numerous times they have ignored the reality of the situation on the ground both politically and militarily to push forth an agenda that is swiftly proving to be an enormous misjudgement of not only the reality of the situation in one country but the reality of a situation in a whole region.

The argument shouldn't be "Democracy a Difficult Road" it should be "Is Democracy a Good thing for Every Country". To use examples that "Liberal #1 said we will need hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq in order to succeed" and then point out that we only have 130,000 there so that means those in opposition are wrong is at the least a poor and desperate example. It was recommended by Generals on the ground that we needed somewhere in the area of 200-300,000 troopsto do the job right. So now with 130,000 this is what we have, a stalemate.

We all post here and are in a sense "Arm Chair Generals" but we don't effect national policy, we don't decide the fate of nations, we don't decide who and where our military fights so the armchair generals posting here whether on the right or left don't matter, its the arm chair generals in washington that have created the mess our soldiers and country is in.

Nope you are right Rover, you've opened my eyes.

Democracy isn't good for everyone. Some countries it's okay to stone your woman on your own word, it's okay to keep women at the educational level of a 10 year old boy, it's okay to plot and bomb and kill women and children in other countries because you don't want to take on the men in war all in the name of your god that those infidels refuse to believe in

Jesus...


Fandros

Yeah its so great that Hamas has been elected to a position of controlling the government of the Palestinians it has done wonders. I think its so great that Hezbollah is the dominant force in the Lebanese government. They both do so great running things, no women getting stoned in fact no woman allowed to show their faces, drive cars, go out of their houses just a wonderful utopia that democracy is creating there.

Hate it eh, I can show you a map to go move to a nondemocratic country quick easily!!

It's always ugly and hard at first, if you think our own was pristine and booful at first then you sir are dreaming.

Giving options is a good thing.

Fandros

The argument shouldn't be "Democracy a Difficult Road" it should be "Is Democracy a Good thing for Every Country". ... It was recommended by Generals on the ground that we needed somewhere in the area of 200-300,000 troopsto do the job right. So now with 130,000 this is what we have, a stalemate.I've never been convinced having more boots on the ground would have mattered either way, though there are strong arguments that putting more people in Iraq and keeping them there for this occupation idea would have made matters worse even.

The real mistake in my opinion was keeping Bremer and his CPA there for so long...

Yeah its so great that Hamas has been elected to a position of controlling the government of the Palestinians it has done wonders. I think its so great that Hezbollah is the dominant force in the Lebanese government. They were running things before the elections. Now they're being held accountable for it.

The election of Hamas and Hezbollah didn't make them anymore accountible than they were before, it politically legitimized them is all it did.

Just explain how it is a better thing that Hamas and Hezbollah are now legitimate forces in legitimately elected governments?

I think both Fandros and Akipt are incorrectly reading the point of my posts. I completely back the actions of the Israelis, I would feel no loss if the Israelis pushed those bastards so far out into the meditterranean sea that they'd need gills to breathe. That said my point is, has the great democracy experiment ended up legitimizing terror groups that should have no place at any table, and if so, can this be good?

Democracy isn't an experiment it's the best known form of government ever. It has flaws, and yes Hamas and such getting elected to positions of power is a horrible thing.

That being said tho, when Hamas fails to better their peoples situation, when they are seen to lead them into death and destruction, when they leave their country worse off then when they left it they'll be voted out.

Young governments often make mistakes and are revolutionary in their base. But as they mature they move away from radical behavior.

Fandros

It's not that hamas and hezbolla are inherently bad organazations. Hamas is the biggest humanitarian organization in palestine. If hamas focused only on governing palestine I'm sure they would do a great job. The problem is that their number one goal is the destruction of Isreal. They are bringing whatever they get onto themselves by having that goal.

I find it ironic that hezbolla belives that goal is legitimate and they have to right to pursue it and when Isreal retaliates they are called agressors and occupiers.

I certainly hope that Isreal isn't forced to nuke iran at some point in this conflict.

That said my point is, has the great democracy experiment ended up legitimizing terror groups that should have no place at any table, and if so, can this be good?Absolutely not. Just because they had elections there doesn't mean its a warm and fuzzy. And it certainly did not legitimize them. But being a ruling party of a sovereign state, they now have to obide by international law... even if that only means having the UN sneeze in your general direction for breaking the rules.

The elections didn't make Hamas right. It made them responsible for their actions.

As I said before, there are no longer any 'poor Palestinians' in my book. The people there chose freely to install an internationally recognized terror group as their ruling party. May God have mercy on their souls, because I don't think they deserve any from Israel.

Hamas is the biggest humanitarian organization in palestine. If hamas focused only on governing palestine I'm sure they would do a great job.


That speaks volumes, Hamas has the hearts and minds of the people, right there is where we need to beat them.

That speaks volumes, Hamas has the hearts and minds of the people, right there is where we need to beat them.

I agree, we need to beat them in the heart and in the mind.... perferably with a big stick.

Just to go back to the point counterpoint with Akipt.

When in doubt, follow the money

“The administration’s top budget official estimated today that the cost of a war with Iraq could be in the range of $50 billion to $60 billion,” saying that “earlier estimates of $100 billion to $200 billion in Iraq war costs by Lawrence B. Lindsey, Mr. Bush’s former chief economic adviser, were too high.” The New York Times, Dec. 31, 2002

“According to C.B.O.’s estimates, from the time U.S. forces invaded Iraq in March 2003, $290 billion has been allocated for activities in Iraq. ... Additional costs over the 2007-2016 period would total an estimated $202 billion under the first [optimistic] scenario, and $406 billion under the second one.” Congressional Budget Office, July 13, 2006

Motivations?
“Regime change in Iraq would bring about a number of benefits for the region. ...Extremists in the region would have to rethink their strategy of jihad. Moderates throughout the region would take heart, and our ability to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process would be enhanced.” Vice President Dick Cheney, Aug. 26, 2002