DarkmanX. Yes, the turn over of power is fast approaching in Iraq. Been almost a year & a half since we ousted the Baathist's and took control of the country. Yes, there is chaos in some parts. I acknowledge that argument. Let me ask this, How long was it before we allowed the Germans & Japanese to resume control over their own contries? Aren't US forces still in those two nations. Allowed to remain there by the governments of those two countries? As for the violence that has continued since May of last year~, Weren't there incidents of violence in Germany & Japan after we occupied them? The only land we have asked for, from other countries, in the last 100 years or so, is enough to bury our dead on. Those that died on "their" land to free them from tyrany and oppession. So yes, Americans get a "case of the ass" when we help someone out & then get told to go take a flying ******, after we have finished the job. If anyone wants to continue this thread and have it be a meaningful one, let us debate it in a civilized manner. TC
Well spoken! As for your comparisons to previous conflicts, there is no comparison, to what is happening now. Albeit, we did not have news media coverage like today, but these people (if you want to call them people0 have more civilians that they are going to execute for no justification! But what have we finished? If we leave soon and allow other terrorists organizations to infiltrate and take over, what good have we done? What will it mean to the families that lost loved ones in search of freeing a country? If we don't stay the course, does their sacrifices mean anything? _ _X_X_X_X_X_[small] Silent Assasin[/small]
No one has seriously mentioned the leaving aspect yet. Most seem to feel the allied forces will be present for years to come in Iraq. The transition of power has been gradually coming on line. This big transfer coming up means the interim government is going to have more say of what is happening in their country. Interestingly enough, from what I have observed, they will not have final veto power over military operations of the allied forces. As for puppets, the so called puppets are dying for their beliefs. NATO appears to be coming online to train and supply the new forces. If done to their full capabilities (NATO's), this could be a puppet force with some serious clout. The situation in Iraq is at a crossroads. It is going to be a wait and see situation for some time to come. _X_X_X_X_X_[small][bold]'brobear'[/bold] [/small]
Well, no one saw this coming! The early turn over of power to the Iraqi government. Now they are going to have to stand up for what they want. The ? is that the muslim religion is going to play a major role in their society and yet for all of the freedoms we have invisioned for the Iraqis;especially the women, how are they going to accept women as equals or at least individuals! I'm no expert in the doctrine of their religion, but I have spent time in the middle east and women are treated worst them family pets. They can't look men in the eye and they must be subservient at all times and if they are not with a man, they must enter businesses in different entrances (usually the backdoor). The reason I bring this up is that I have seen where schools were built and women were getting educated and learning to read, which was not allowed previously. Now how do they return back to the way it use to be? _X_X_X_X_X_[small] Silent Assasin[/small]
Not surprised it happened this way. Glad it did. Maybe it will knock the terrorists off their game and spare some lives. Correct me if I am wrong, Aren't some of the members of the interim governing coucil women? That, to me would indicate that they indeed received an education. Whether in Iraq or elsewhere. Religion will still play a part in their political arena. As well it should. Hopefully it will not be a dominating factor. That they are religious can be a good thing. Until you get the majority of Iraqi's a solid education, religious leaders will play a role. Sooner, better than later. Al Sistani is a rational man to a degree. Al Sadr is not. Al Sadr's father was killed by Hussein. And he wants to take issue with the US? For pete's sake, we took out his fathers killer. I am all for educating every person regardless of sex. Good god/allah/yaweh..... , how would you like to live in a tent with a harem whose menstrual cycles have synchronized? And they all have PMS? TC
I feel like my head is going to explode after reading this thread. I do have to agree with darkmanx for the most part.
Deeman, Don't take the philosophical release of the residents to heart or head. Hopefully, you have your own point of view by this late date. Just view the words as letting the world know how we feel. Different people, and therefore different views. Though, there is a general consensus that nuking folks is considered a bad policy. There are a lot of things wrong in the world and a lot of injustices. Just watch the news and pay attention, if you want a migraine. The Middle East has been embroiled in strife for centuries. Much longer than some countries have existed. If everyone (governments included) would treat all (child, woman, and man) as they want to be treated, there would be far fewer problems. It'll never happen, but what if. The problem is that everyone wants to protect their power base and garner more power, one way or another. Even the benevolent powers. Have a good day.
I do realize that there are many opinions in the world such as the ones stated above. It bothers me that a lot of the opinions formed from Europeans about the U.S. are formed from watching the biased press in their own countries. How many stories of the good things that are happening in iraq are aired in Europe such as the new schools and court system being built that protect peoples rights. I'll bet none! At least my president doesn't comb his hair with a porkchop like the president of france! Ha, take that one!
And what good did the insult do, besides venting some frustration about US/France relations? Didn't make any more friends there internationally. Most of the people in the UK realize the bias of the press, or should. The US press isn't innocent either. Bad news sells, good news is overlooked. Ask yourself which country has been the US's most staunch ally, before and during the current crisis.
The question really is: which GOVERNMENT of which country has been the US's staunchest ally? There really isn't one single country out there where public opinion sides with the US on Iraq.
Siber, Avoiding semantics, I believe you know the historical validity. Political factions are in a constant state of flux. I was asking the nation the US shared the closest allegiance with. When a lot of countries aren't threatened at home, the citizens are going to be against war. Others foolishly try to appease their attackers. It's easy to be a liberal when there isn't a personal threat. Constantly, in the hour of need, these two countries have been allied, irregardless of who was in political control at the time.
Perfectly sound line of reasoning ... people often forget this. That the problem when people let religion and emotion get in the way of sound thinking and rationale No no humans dont Naturally.... that's a given ;-) It brings light to one of the key cuases of political/ideological conflict: people from foreign countries get "their" news and form "their" opinions based on it. While "our" country gets "our" news from "our" people -- regardless of what you think of the press and its bias or lack thereof, the stories each "side" get is different and neither side, as a majority, is open-minded enough to accept the possibility of the "other" side's news being more accurate... leading to disbelieve, malcontent and grudges. Israel
I was thinking the UK. Except for the colonial era, the colonies have been reasonably close to their Mother country. Bickering aside, the UK provided a lot of support while others wouldn't help at all. The UK and Australia are probably the closest allies. Canada and Mexico showed where they stood and it didn't put them in a good light. Strangely enough the Japanese stood stronger than most in Iraq, though theirs was a humanitarian force. The Spanish did help, but with the new political group in power they quickly went home. They were bombed for their kind hearted retreat. Seems the terrorists didn't pay attention to appeasement. The US does have an alliance with Israel, but it is more one sided. If Israel tried to help the US openly in the Middle East, there would be hell to pay.
That's the point, I'm not going to bend over backwards and explain my every move because I'm worried about hurting someones feelings! How has what we have done really hurt the people of western Europe? It hasn't. Like I said before it's just a way to vent frustration without looking internaly. We have good trade with every country on the continent and have for centuries. In turn it creates jobs for both peoples focusing on what really matters, our families! I only saw bombs falling on france to liberate them.
As a country the US is only a little over 2 centuries old and I doubt the extent of the trade in the earlier part of that time frame. However, I get your drift. In closing, I'll just say that more people and more governments should be accountable for their words and deeds.
The U.S. is over 225 years old and yes there was trade with France following the revolution being that we no longer shipped goods to england. That is why the colonies were originally founded! Yes, I do agree with you that govs should be held responsible but who is right? Just because a person or gov says one thing there will always be a rebuttle from someone else.
Deeman Every? Centuries? Centuries become 225 years. Your words Deeman. You're batting a 1,000. The constitution was adopted on March 4, 1789. Do the math, just over 215 years if you want to be picky. And trade from the colonies, to amount to anything didn't occurr until the 1800s. And then we weren't trading with [bold]every[/bold] country on the European continent. Sounded good, but it wasn't true. Check the history books if you don't believe me. Better read up on the causes of the American Revolution as well. Something in there about oppression, tyranny, and taxation. Some minor trade with France doesn't make a continental trade alliance. And Praetor already proposed the differences of people and nations. I understand what you're trying to say, you don't need to invent facts to support your own philosophical beliefs.
Didn't say every country, I said france. Last time I checked even 215 years is more than one century, hence I said centuries. Who said anything about a continental trade alliance or the cause of the revolution? You lost me now. I was referring to the reason of the colonies exsistance was for shipping goods to england such as timber, gold, etc. What is the original title of this thread? I don't know any more. I need a sandwich.
Good idea, I was reading what you wrote. Now I'm lost. Have a good sandwich. What do they call it, constructive history? BTW, gold wasn't found in any quantity until later as well. That came with the western movement. Hmmm, revisionist history? _X_X_X_X_X_[small][bold]'brobear'[/bold] [/small]
