TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Do you feel any safer because of the Iraqi war?
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Do you feel any safer because of the Iraqi war?

I DON'T.

Re: Do you feel any safer because of the Iraqi war?

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSaenz I DON'T.

I DO!
we used to fear out of scads pointing to TEL-AVIV. now we dont..
we used to try and stop money coming from saddam to hamas (he also declared that he will pay a large amount od money to every family that sent a suicide bomber, and he did, and now it stopped).

If I lived in Israel I would certainly feel alot safer!!! And on behalf of my country, I accept your many thanks!

But I live in Yorkshire in Northern England, so no! I dont feel any safer! (In fact all I think this war has done for my country is make us more at risk to terrorism!)

I don't feel safer, but I think I'm going to enjoy the lower oil price, living right next to America.

Re: Re: Do you feel any safer because of the Iraqi war?

quote:

Originally posted by deluxe I DO! we used to fear out of scads pointing to TEL-AVIV. now we dont.. we used to try and stop money coming from saddam to hamas (he also declared that he will pay a large amount od money to every family that sent a suicide bomber, and he did, and now it stopped).

The real question is, has suicide bombing stopped or slowed down?

I think everybody in the US should feel a lot more insecure, after the war in afghanistan and iraq.

Congratulations!! You are now the prime target for every international terrorist organization (well you already were, but now your reputation will last a lot longer - at least one whole generation).

yup, with one war in Iraq the US disarmed two great threats to the world - Iraq and Libya. Its not a safe world, but it is much safer than if the US would have done nothing. The US has not appeased terrorism and that my friends and enemies () is the begining to a safer world.

I actually do feel safer.

I hate to admit it, but going into Iraq has had a "bully" effect on other countries. There mere fact that we went into another country, pretty much unilaterally, has shown other countries that the US will not tolerate supporting terrorism or extremist governemnts and is more than prepared to act. Syria, Iran and maybe even North Korea have all softened their stances since the war.

I also have to look at terrorist activity on American soil since the Afghanistan/Iraqi invasions, and in all reality there has been none. 9/11 was suppossed to represent the beginning of a terrorist Jihad on the United States herself, but since then there has been nothing. Sure, we have been attacked over seas, and we have had to take safety measures (diverting/cancelling flights, etc.) but I feel very safe on US soil.

The Iraq/Afghanistan regions will be hot spots for years to come. This is not really America's fault in my opinion. Both areas were liberated from extremist and often cruel governments and that to me is the most important issue. The reason for the strife is age-old: peoples of different customs and beliefs fighting for control of land/independence in a power-vacuum. This has or is going on in Isreal, Bosnia, Chechnya and now Iraq and Afghanistan, it's really nothing new or unexpected.

Would I feel safer in Iraq or Afghanistan? No. Do I feel safer here in the United Stats? Most definetly yes.

i never felt threatened by Iraq, and now I actually feel a lot less safe. I'll feel safer once Bush is out of office.

Re: Re: Do you feel any safer because of the Iraqi war?

quote:

Originally posted by deluxe I DO! we used to fear out of scads pointing to TEL-AVIV. now we dont.. we used to try and stop money coming from saddam to hamas (he also declared that he will pay a large amount od money to every family that sent a suicide bomber, and he did, and now it stopped).

My cousin is not over there getting shot at to appease Israel, nor ExxonMobil, nor Haliburton.

Israel has a powerful military and they could have done their own dirty work.

quote:

Originally posted by dj adagnitio The real question is, has suicide bombing stopped or slowed down?

No. Terrorism has increased in Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...4-2004Feb1.html

quote:

Twin Bombings Kill at Least 56 in Northern Iraq Suicide Attacks Strike Both U.S.-Backed Kurdish Political Parties in Irbil By Scheherezade Faramarzi The Associated Press Sunday, February 1, 2004; 3:04 PM IRBIL, Iraq -- Two suicide bombers with explosives wired to their bodies struck the offices of the country's two main Kurdish parties in nearly simultaneous attacks Sunday, killing at least 56 people and wounding more than 235 in the deadliest assault in Iraq in six months. The attacks struck in the Kurdish heartland and took a heavy toll among senior leaders of Iraq's most pro-American ethnic group. Elsewhere, an American soldier was killed and 12 were wounded in a rocket attack on a logistics base in Balad, 50 miles north of Baghdad, the U.S. command said. The death raised to 523 the number of U.S. service members who have died since the Iraq conflict began in March. The Irbil attackers slipped into the offices of the Kurdistan Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan along with hundreds of well-wishers gathering for the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha, or the Feast of Sacrifice. Kurdish television said both bombers were dressed as Muslim clerics. Leaders of both parties, whose militias fought alongside U.S. soldiers during the invasion of Iraq last year, were receiving hundreds of visitors to mark the start of the four-day holiday when the blasts went off. Guards said they did not search people because of the tradition of receiving guests during the holiday. Neither party's top leader -- Jalal Talabani of the PUK and Massoud Barzani of the KDP -- was in Irbil when the attacks occurred. Although Iraq has suffered numerous suicide bombings in recent months, the attack Sunday marked the first time perpetrators have worn explosives rather than using vehicles. Sunday's blasts came a day after a car bomb outside a police station in the northern city of Mosul killed at least nine people. Hours later, a mortar attack hit a Baghdad neighborhood, killing five people and wounding four. U.S. officials said foreign militants or Ansar al-Islam, an al-Qaida-linked Islamic militant group based in the north that has frequently clashed with the Kurds, may have carried out the attacks. There was no immediate claim of responsibility. "We have no proof at this point (about who is responsible). It could be Ansar al-Islam. It could be al-Qaida. It could be any of a number of foreign terrorist groups operating in Iraq," said U.S. Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, coalition deputy chief of staff for operations. U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer pledged to work with Iraqi security forces to capture those behind Sunday's bombings. The attackers "are seeking to halt Iraq's progress on the path to sovereignty and democracy," Bremer said in a statement. In statements, the leaders of both parties, once bitter rivals, expressed their resolve to fight terrorism together. "These terrorist acts are against the Islamic religion and humanity and we shall work more seriously toward uniting our (Kurdish) government," Talabani said. "We will work together in order to live in a democratic, federal Iraq." No matter who was behind them, the blasts may heighten tensions between the Kurds and Sunni Arabs. As U.S. and Iraqi leaders try to map out the country's new form of government, some Arabs have sharply opposed Kurdish demands to retain or even expand their self-rule region in the north. Hours after the attack, a mangled head believed to be that of one bomber lay on the floor of the KDP office. Blood and bits of flesh were spattered on the walls and ceilings. The attack on the PUK office, about eight miles away, took place at about the same time. The U.S. command in Baghdad put the casualty toll at 56 dead and more than 200 injured. Irbil city morgue director Tawana Kareem told the AP that 57 bodies were brought to the morgue and "figures are increasing." At least 235 people were admitted to the city's three hospitals with injuries, hospital officials said. Officials said the death toll may be far higher, with some bodies buried in the rubble or taken away by relatives. The KDP leadership took a heavy blow. Among the dead were the Irbil region's governor Akram Mintik, the deputy governor and his two sons, and the KDP Deputy Prime Minister Sami Abdul Rahman, as well as ministers in the Kurdish administration, according to Ihsan and other Kurdish officials. The PUK's military commander also was killed, Kimmitt said. The attack in Irbil, 200 miles north of Baghdad, was believed to be the deadliest since an Aug. 29 car bombing in the Shiite holy city of Najaf killed Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir al-Hakim and more than 100 others as they emerged from Friday prayers. There have been a series of suicide car bombings in Iraq in recent weeks and authorities are concerned they may be the work of al-Qaida. U.S. military officials had said they were prepared for any upsurge of violence in connection with the Eid holiday. The start of the Islamic fasting month of Ramadan last year marked a sharp escalation in violence against the U.S.-led coalition and its Iraqi allies. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, visiting the Iraqi capital Sunday, said the bombings on the Muslim holy day showed the inhumanity of those responsible. "They are not about Islam," he said. "They're about their own fanatical view of the world, and they will kill to try to advance it. But we're winning, and they're losing." Under U.S.-led aerial protection, Iraq's Kurdish minority, ethnically distinct from the majority Arabs, have ruled a Switzerland-sized swath in the north of the country since the end of the Gulf War more than a decade ago. Though they have feuded violently in the past, the KDP and PUK have worked together in recent years to run the zone, creating their own parliament in Irbil. Kurdish leaders have been pressing for a federal system in Iraq's permanent post-Saddam Hussein government that would enshrine their autonomy. That has prompted accusations among many in the Arab majority that the Kurds seek to divide the country Tensions have been further hiked by struggles to dominate Kirkuk, a key oil city just outside the Kurdish zone with a population equally divided among Kurds, Arabs and other ethnic groups. The blasts could sharpen divisions between Arabs and Kurds, said Jonathan Schanzer, a terrorism expert from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy who met Kurdish officials in Irbil last week. "I think that they (the attackers) are trying to drive a wedge between the north and the center," Schanzer said. "They will want the Kurds to circle the wagons and make them more suspicious of Arabs. This will certainly add to the fractured landscape of Iraq." "This was an attack on all Iraqis not on any particular group," Yehia Khatib, a spokesman for the Iraqi Governing Council, said in Baghdad. "Our aim and target to build a new democratic Iraq will not be affected." Also Sunday, about six Iraqis were killed when they accidentally set off an explosion while looting a former Iraqi munitions dump in the desert 112 miles southwest of the southern city of Karbala, said a spokesman for Polish forces.

quote:

Originally posted by LouisLaBelle I don't feel safer, but I think I'm going to enjoy the lower oil price, living right next to America.

The funny thing is, gas prices have been going up steadily in the last months.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus yup, with one war in Iraq the US disarmed two great threats to the world - Iraq

There are no WMDs. There was nothing to be disarmed. At the very least we could have had American leaders that would have built a legit coalition or plan to oust Saddam without us having to saddle the burden virtually alone. Weren�t you the one complaining about high taxes the other day? Who do you think is going to pay for this war?

Look in the mirror.

quote:

Libya.

That agreement was under negotiation for some years. He's still a dictator who brutally oppresses his people, but I guess since he's our friend now, we'll just let that slide.

quote:

Its not a safe world, but it is much safer than if the US would have done nothing. The US has not appeased terrorism and that my friends and enemies () is the begining to a safer world.

If we followed John Kerry's and other�s plans to move us to a hydrogen economy and increase fuel efficiency for cars, that would help reduce our dependency on foreign oil. We could then slow and eventually cease the flow of money to Arab nations like Saudi Arabia that support terrorism with a wink and a nod.

I like that plan better than blowing the world up and destroying the Northern half of Alaska forever for 6 months worth of oil.

Let�s face it, even if it was completely the intelligence agencies� fault, Bush and Cheney will have near zero credibility now when it comes to the �war on terror.�

It�s hard to believe a handful of chickenhawks could wield so much power and destruction.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I actually do feel safer. I hate to admit it, but going into Iraq has had a "bully" effect on other countries. There mere fact that we went into another country, pretty much unilaterally, has shown other countries that the US will not tolerate supporting terrorism or extremist governemnts and is more than prepared to act. Syria, Iran and maybe even North Korea have all softened their stances since the war. I also have to look at terrorist activity on American soil since the Afghanistan/Iraqi invasions, and in all reality there has been none. 9/11 was suppossed to represent the beginning of a terrorist Jihad on the United States herself, but since then there has been nothing. Sure, we have been attacked over seas, and we have had to take safety measures (diverting/cancelling flights, etc.) but I feel very safe on US soil. The Iraq/Afghanistan regions will be hot spots for years to come. This is not really America's fault in my opinion. Both areas were liberated from extremist and often cruel governments and that to me is the most important issue. The reason for the strife is age-old: peoples of different customs and beliefs fighting for control of land/independence in a power-vacuum. This has or is going on in Isreal, Bosnia, Chechnya and now Iraq and Afghanistan, it's really nothing new or unexpected.

I supported the Afghanistan war. We had the community of Nations and a broad coalition on our side. Up until Iraq Bush was doing a decent job on national security when he began to alienate the community of nations more and more with his unilateralist stance. If you think about it, Bush is actually one of the moderates of his Administration when you compare him to many his advisors; fierce unilateralists.

In Iraq before the war, we had US and UK war planes patroling the North and South to protect the Kurds and Shi ahs. Saddam's regime was the only thing keeping the region from falling into civil war, and now our young soldiers are the only thing holding back civil war.

Colin Powell has said there were no ties between Iraq and Al Queda, but if they weren't there before, they are now.

quote:

Originally posted by DrummeRaver86 I'll feel safer once Bush is out of office.

As a person of draft age, I agree.

nicely said DaveSaenz

The middle east is SOOO STABLE!! Just what america wanted. And Americans are loved even more now. Did i tell you that Bush is also a very much respected man throughout the world. Americans, dont worry, those who have been pissed of aftert heyve seen their family's get blown to bits by "precision guided" missiles that went off course, are too poor to reak havoc on your country. So Instead, they are agoing to kill your troops and even each other!

But who cares, as long as gas is cheap, life is good!

Re: Re: Do you feel any safer because of the Iraqi war?

quote:

Originally posted by deluxe I DO! we used to fear out of scads pointing to TEL-AVIV. now we dont.. we used to try and stop money coming from saddam to hamas (he also declared that he will pay a large amount od money to every family that sent a suicide bomber, and he did, and now it stopped).

How come its ok when the US can attack Iraq for invading Kuwait, but when Iraq attacks Israel for invading Lebenon and taking the Golan heights of Syria, and stealing palestinian land its wrong?

Not at all, if anything, I feel a lot less safe. Before the war, I would have said that Australia wasn't viewed as being 'in bed' with the US, we weren't a target, but after we sent troops to Iraq, our name has begun popping up in the so called 'Bin Laden Tapes' with disturbing frequency. Another key thing for me is the fact that we have a fundamentalist Islamic terror group in Jehmah Islamih (sp) (The group responsible for the Bali bombings) right on our doorstep so to speak. Supporting Bush in his crusade is the last thing we should be doing imho.

quote:

Originally posted by arctic Not at all, if anything, I feel a lot less safe. Before the war, I would have said that Australia wasn't viewed as being 'in bed' with the US, we weren't a target, but after we sent troops to Iraq, our name has begun popping up in the so called 'Bin Laden Tapes' with disturbing frequency. Another key thing for me is the fact that we have a fundamentalist Islamic terror group in Jehmah Islamih (sp) (The group responsible for the Bali bombings) right on our doorstep so to speak. Supporting Bush in his crusade is the last thing we should be doing imho.

oh god-forbid we'd might provoke the terrorist, oh no that would defintely be the end of the world

I know I was always scared into submission from a weaker flamboyant party during my life.. I don't see why countries should behave any different.

Come on get some balls and confront the facts - terrorism exist before Bush and it won't go away unless somebodies has some balls to try and do something about it, and you know what, if you like em or hate him, Bush has balls.

Re: Re: Re: Do you feel any safer because of the Iraqi war?

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSaenz My cousin is not over there getting shot at to appease Israel, nor ExxonMobil, nor Haliburton. Israel has a powerful military and they could have done their own dirty work.

Hehe, what world exactly are you living in? You might want to lay off those "mind-altering" stimulants, as clearly you are not living in the world of reality. In the world of reality, Israel has no dying hope of conquering and occupying a nation like Iraq.

And if you really still think this war is for Oil, well than go jump off a bridge, because everyone else is doing it.

quote:

No. Terrorism has increased in Iraq. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...4-2004Feb1.html

Since when? Since Saddam was in power? Yes. Since Saddam was in capture? No.

quote:

The funny thing is, gas prices have been going up steadily in the last months.

Ya those bastards are horrible - and its not even Summer, from some reason I suspect the french are behind this one.

quote:

There are no WMDs. There was nothing to be disarmed. At the very least we could have had American leaders that would have built a legit coalition or plan to oust Saddam without us having to saddle the burden virtually alone. Weren�t you the one complaining about high taxes the other day? Who do you think is going to pay for this war?

I guess your history is very short sided, the "American leaders" had tried to build a "legit coalition or plan to oust Saddam", and you know what they were told by the "legit", they were told to go "fuck off", so they decided the "Ameircan Leaders" went to the UK, Ozzieland, and so forth and went it alone.


Sure I'm complaning about taxes, but I have no problem paying a government for the sole responsibility it is given to by the people - the right to ensure that nation's security. For that I will pay (up to 5%), I was talking about all the useless things like medicare, and funding NPR, you know all the things you are for

Plus if you think this is a burden for the world's powerhouse economy, come on the US throws arounds billions here and billions there, whats another $20?

quote:

Look in the mirror.

Oh why aren't we handsome today! Rouuch!

quote:

That agreement was under negotiation for some years. He's still a dictator who brutally oppresses his people, but I guess since he's our friend now, we'll just let that slide.

So, you recommend sanctions and killing off his children, perhaps we should invade and outst him for it? I have no problem with the latter, but I think you'll have problems "affording" it.

quote:

If we followed John Kerry's and other�s plans to move us to a hydrogen economy and increase fuel efficiency for cars, that would help reduce our dependency on foreign oil. We could then slow and eventually cease the flow of money to Arab nations like Saudi Arabia that support terrorism with a wink and a nod.

What happened to Dean's plan... wait what happened to Dean?

But Kerry can do nothing more than Bush is doign now - Bush has the exact same hyrdrogen initiative - but its 5-10 years away from us now, then it will gain steam.

quote:

I like that plan better than blowing the world up and destroying the Northern half of Alaska forever for 6 months worth of oil.

Ahh come on, you have no sense of fun and adventure! Blow things up, destory a forest here in there - it'll bring a big smile to your face

quote:

Let�s face it, even if it was completely the intelligence agencies� fault, Bush and Cheney will have near zero credibility now when it comes to the �war on terror.� It�s hard to believe a handful of chickenhawks could wield so much power and destruction.

Ohh you called American's leader's "chickenhawks"... now they are in for it! Glad to see they are running away with there tail between their legs at the first terrorist strike to kill an American.. oh wait, no they're not.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you feel any safer because of the Iraqi war?

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus And if you really still think this war is for Oil, well than go jump off a bridge, because everyone else is doing it. Ohh you called American's leader's "chickenhawks"... now they are in for it!

to address your first point:
Yes it is a war for oil. i have one word for you. halliburton

secondly, you're right, they aren't chickenhawks, they're War Hawks, just like the Southern politicians in the antebellum period before the war of 1812 in america...things don't change.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you feel any safer because of the Iraqi war?

quote:

Originally posted by DrummeRaver86 to address your first point: Yes it is a war for oil. i have one word for you. halliburton

I can't find that "word" in the dictionary, can you help me?

I Don't

Ah, the Halliburton conspiracy saga continues.


See, now I could conceivably believe that a war could be for oil-somewhat in the sense of a Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome sort of way(He who controls the oil has the power/he who rules makes the rules). I mean if you look at the world from a super objective point of view and see humans acting for their survival, and energy(oil being one of the more efficient energy sources available), being the key to existence, was scarce and vital. If a culture is compelled to wage a war for energy for the sake of it's survival...see, now that actually makes sense if you think humans are nothing more than smart monkeys. But that would likely be a grounds up revolt starting on the streets due to inavailability than from the central office, and that would also make the assumption that the U.S. is somehow really desparate for more oil.

But the U.S. isn't that desparate for more oil...at least not yet, and not anytime in the immediate future for all I can tell. Alaska is sitting on a huge oil reserve that we currently don't use because PETA and Greenpeace are much more formidable foes than Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention waging a war on yourself never got anyone reelected. We have a Strategic Petroleum reserve that was built up in the 70's, though it's meant more as a supplemental source than a primary source. There are large proven reserves in the Gulf of Mexico around Louisiana and out in the deeper water. Not to mention new technologies which are now being used to extract hydrocarbons from sources that previously weren't considered to have any energy related purpose (like clay). I remember reading recently that one of the largest proven oil reserves had been recently discovered in South America, I think. It was sizeable enough to make Iraq's supply look less dominating. I remember that this reserve was found in clay mines or something--a relatively new source of hydrocarbons at the time--the technologies involved have gotten much more advanced. Don't worry, there is plenty of oil out there--it's just a matter of how quickly it can be extracted, and how quickly we transition away from a dependence on it as more alternative fuels are being developed.

But to say a war was wagered for the primary purpose of making Halliburton shareholders filthy rich? Yeah, a guy who used to run a successful Fortune 500 Company, then sold all of his interests in order to serve his country, is somehow pulling the strings behind the scenes to manipulate intelligence agencies, the travel industry, and the global community in order to put a few more greenbacks in his pocket which he ironically doesn't even need more of in the first place? I find this argument to be high-risk.

But then again, Iraq does have the world's largest proven oil reserve, which makes for some great conspiracy theories.

Ya. the whole war for oil is one of my biggest pet peeves, i dont know why it annoys me so much, but it really doesnt add up. I've heard enough US officials who opposed the war (like madeline albright, who i saw say it in person) say that the 'war for oil' bit is ridiculous.

Because Bush is such a moral guy, he felt absolutely compelled to free Iraq of the tyrannous death-grip of their leader...what a nice guy. oh please.

quote:

Originally posted by DrummeRaver86 Because Bush is such a moral guy, he felt absolutely compelled to free Iraq of the tyrannous death-grip of their leader...what a nice guy. oh please.

is that so hard to belive?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Do you feel any safer because of the Iraqi war?

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus

Honestly, your rambling flame fest isn't even worth my time.

More US troops died as a result of terror attacks in January than in December.

One thing that never ceases to amaze me is the fact that people who have benefited from institutions like public schools, public libraries, and public universities favor eviscerating and decapitating these same institutions from which they have benefited after they are no longer in need of them.

Another thing that amazes me is how many people who support this war don't have friends or family fighting it. It's easy to say you support a war when you don't have a personal stake in it, and the people fighting and dying for it are completely foreign to your existence. Remember, we were not told we were getting rid of Saddam because he was a "bad guy." Roll tape if you don't believe me.

If you think the US has such a broad-based "coalition" then why are we shouldering most of the burden in troop's lives and money for reconstruction? The US military is now stretched so thin, they are having to send old middle-aged men in the National Guard and Reserve to Iraq.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Ah, the Halliburton conspiracy saga continues. See, now I could conceivably believe that a war could be for oil-somewhat in the sense of a Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome sort of way(He who controls the oil has the power/he who rules makes the rules). I mean if you look at the world from a super objective point of view and see humans acting for their survival, and energy(oil being one of the more efficient energy sources available), being the key to existence, was scarce and vital. If a culture is compelled to wage a war for energy for the sake of it's survival...see, now that actually makes sense if you think humans are nothing more than smart monkeys. But that would likely be a grounds up revolt starting on the streets due to inavailability than from the central office, and that would also make the assumption that the U.S. is somehow really desparate for more oil. But the U.S. isn't that desparate for more oil...at least not yet, and not anytime in the immediate future for all I can tell. Alaska is sitting on a huge oil reserve that we currently don't use because PETA and Greenpeace are much more formidable foes than Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention waging a war on yourself never got anyone reelected. We have a Strategic Petroleum reserve that was built up in the 70's, though it's meant more as a supplemental source than a primary source. There are large proven reserves in the Gulf of Mexico around Louisiana and out in the deeper water. Not to mention new technologies which are now being used to extract hydrocarbons from sources that previously weren't considered to have any energy related purpose (like clay). I remember reading recently that one of the largest proven oil reserves had been recently discovered in South America, I think. It was sizeable enough to make Iraq's supply look less dominating. I remember that this reserve was found in clay mines or something--a relatively new source of hydrocarbons at the time--the technologies involved have gotten much more advanced. Don't worry, there is plenty of oil out there--it's just a matter of how quickly it can be extracted, and how quickly we transition away from a dependence on it as more alternative fuels are being developed. But to say a war was wagered for the primary purpose of making Halliburton shareholders filthy rich? Yeah, a guy who used to run a successful Fortune 500 Company, then sold all of his interests in order to serve his country, is somehow pulling the strings behind the scenes to manipulate intelligence agencies, the travel industry, and the global community in order to put a few more greenbacks in his pocket which he ironically doesn't even need more of in the first place? I find this argument to be high-risk. But then again, Iraq does have the world's largest proven oil reserve, which makes for some great conspiracy theories.

Thank you for not being an asshole in your response like some others. I apologize also if I came across that way.

You're right; I don't honestly believe it was entirely for oil. That's only a side benefit.
I don�t agree with Kucinich on his Iraq plan to pull troops out ASAP, because it�s frankly unworkable. It�s hard for me to see even a leader less hell-bent on unilateralist tendencies be able to persuade other countries to put their young lives in the shooting gallery so that ours can go home. I just wanted people to see the cost of the war to the Iraqi people, so that a few of us may feel �safer.�


The current US leaders are implementing an idealistic plan to try and "democratize" the Middle East by forcibly deposing leaders they find unsuitable. Of course Iraq won't be, in all likelihood, a true democracy because as long as this "plan" is under US control, the Iraqis will not be allowed to elect the leaders they'd truly wish to elect. They will likely be forced to choose from a handful of US handpicked leaders.

Anyways, if the �one man one vote� model is implemented, the Shi�ah will win a majority in whatever new democratic government model is set up. It�s hard for me to see the Kurds and Sunnis bowing to Shi�ah control after being used to near autonomy (Kurds), and decades of dominance (Sunni). I think for the Kurdish situation, it would be easy to give them an independent nation, but I worry more about the other two ethnic groups� coexistence. Like I�ve said, this is a very risky plan from the outset, but one can only hope that things will improve.

I also worry about the women of Iraq and how they will fare under a non-secular Islamic government. Nobody is disputing Saddam was a brutal leader, but under his secular Iraq, women had among the most rights of any other Middle Eastern country.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.