Should Iraq be left to get on with it ?

[VonClausewitz]

Question for you to argue about - Should Iraq just be left to have it's civil war, let them fight it out for a couple of decades or however long it'd take, having bloody-minded Americans running around in helicopters obviously isn't helping the situation, so perhaps the armies of foreign nations should take ship and go home, and the Iraqi's should sort it out amongst themselves ?

A quote I like, from some famous (dead) man - "Some wars just have to be fought"

I forget who said it, but it is true, sometimes a bit of a scrap has to happen, to get it out of the political and social system, so that the country could get back to normal. The only other real alternative, if the mullahs won't let the people live with each other, is foreign government. Similar to a loosely-governened India near the end of it's government by the British Empire. I know you'll all explode and type viciously about that idea, so what about just letting them get on with it, instead of trying to hold the lid on a violently bubbling pan ?

[Oh-Dae-Su]

Ok, picture this, Shii'a are the minority in Iraq right, and who is the majority Shiia in the muslim world? IRAN. Ok , what does Iran have that is scaring the hell out of the world right now? NUCLEAR WEAPONS! if a civil war happens in Iraq, the Sunnis who are the majority will slaughter the Shiia, if this happens , believe me the Ayatollah of Iran who is the supreme leader, will come under intense i mean intense pressure from his people to do something to save their Shiia brothers. This could possibly be WW3, you would have chaos, and throw Isreal into the mix, because Israel is shitting on their pants right now in the mere thought that Iran has Nuclear capabilities. So anyone with half a brain can infer that no no no, civil war is not the way to solve things, i mean c'mon!! you know this would probably be genocide, since Sunni are the majority. What are you on? and you call the Americans "the killers"!! :rolleyes:

[VonClausewitz]

I called the Americans bloody-minded, which they are.

I'm not 'on' anything. Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons, it wants to make them, it doesn't actually own any, so that is null and void. I don't think another spot of inter-faith warfare in the middle-east is going to spark a world war, it hasn't for the best part of 50 years, why should it now ?

To start a proper world war, you'd need to annoy an important nation - China, Russia, etc. Iran and Israel can't cause that kind of problem for the world, no matter how hard they try.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

alrighty mate, so tell me, what do you think will happen if tomorrow a civil war brakes out in Iraq. You think Iran is going to let Sunnis massacre Shiia? :rolleyes: Iran and Israel aren't important nations ? as to start a WW? :lol: dude, it only took a bullet to start WW1, if Iran goes and saves it's Shiia , it will have to do it with obvious confrontation with the Sunnis, and then the Sunni majority in the muslim world will cross it's hands too? But anyways, lets say civil war happens and no intervention from Iran or any other muslim country occurs ( :rolleyes: highly improbable) you think the UN will do nothing? you think Americans and it's allies are going to pack up and leave? :lol: you could throw 10 atomic bombs there is nothing that will make us leave, HELLO! there is oil in IRAQ!! DUHH!

[Oh-Dae-Su]

I called the Americans bloody-minded, which they are.

ohh man i hope your not British, because that would be the most ironic thing iv eve heard :lol: what an oxymoron!

[VonClausewitz]

C'mon, grow up, 'DUHH' is the kind of riposte I'd expect from a emotionally deficient three year old.

There is oil in Alaska last time I looked, and in Siberia, and theres some left in the north sea, and in other places. America doesn't need to be in the middle east, and these people really need to sort their own problems out. Countries that rely on others to everything for them end up like most of Africa. And that my friend, is Historical Fact™

Edit - Why would my nationality have anything to do with it ? I've never killed anyone personally.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

what does it matter if there is oil in Falkland Islands!? :blink: the fact is that Iraq has far more oil, and we are already there!! HELLO!? what im trying to say is that we are not going to leave, it's going to be like Western Europe, Japan, South Korea, etc. where 50 , 40 years on , and we still have military presence there. We are not going to let go of Iraq so easily, althought i believe that with the years our military presence might be reduced, but this aint going to be Vietnam, because there was nothing in Vietnam of particular interests to us.


Countries that rely on others to everything for them end up like most of Africa. And that my friend, is Historical Fact™

don't really understand that phrase? to everything? and end up like Africa? and Historical Fact is a trademark lmao cool.



Why would my nationality have anything to do with it ? I've never killed anyone personally.

and i have? :blink: omg! :lol: so i guess every american has killed someone, that is the reason for your generalistic phrase:
I called the Americans bloody-minded, which they are.
if that isn't an ignorant comment, i don't know what it is :rolleyes:

[Ultra-Violence]

There is oil in Alaska last time I looked, and in Siberia, and theres some left in the north sea, and in other places. America doesn't need to be in the middle east

You make a good point there but you see oil is only part of the problem. America is there to maintain "DOLLAR SUPREMECY". since the dollar is falling down in value in the global economy its "rival" the euro is on the rise. And now America has a "BIG" competetor "china" and if america has control of the middle east and its oil reserves it can keep china on check and maintain dollar supremecy. and not only china but countries like russia and england who also strive for these oil reserves. Who ever get control of them will be sue to dominate the world economy for some time.



alrighty mate, so tell me, what do you think will happen if tomorrow a civil war brakes out in Iraq. You think Iran is going to let Sunnis massacre Shiia? Iran and Israel aren't important nations ? as to start a WW? dude, it only took a bullet to start WW1, if Iran goes and saves it's Shiia , it will have to do it with obvious confrontation with the Sunnis, and then the Sunni majority in the muslim world will cross it's hands too? But anyways, lets say civil war happens and no intervention from Iran or any other muslim country occurs ( highly improbable) you think the UN will do nothing? you think Americans and it's allies are going to pack up and leave? you could throw 10 atomic bombs there is nothing that will make us leave, HELLO! there is oil in IRAQ!! DUHH!

I think u have your facts mixed up there buddy the "sunnis" are the minority and they ruled for sometime and slaughterd the "shities" for some time now and i dont know if you know this already but iraq is already in civil war :unsure:

[Oh-Dae-Su]

the "sunnis" are the minority and they ruled for sometime and slaughterd the "shities" for some time now and i dont know if you know this already but iraq is already in civil war

yes, true, but the it's not the shiite, its the Shiia. The civil war in Iraq is between the Sunni and Shiia/Shiite (which i think is the same) whatever the case, Iran plays an important role. No the civil war technically hasn't started. One Shiia killed a Sunni, then viceversa, that's not a civil war. Civil war is large scale war between the two groups. But Sunni are the majority in the Musilm world, so wether it is the sunni or the shiia loosing in Iraq, their respective brothers around the muslim world will surely interfere, it's only logical.

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by Oh-Dae-[email protected] 27 2006, 07:53 PM
phrase:
I called the Americans bloody-minded, which they are.
if that isn't an ignorant comment, i don't know what it is :rolleyes:
Here (http://www.thenausea.com/usa.html) is a link to a list of the war crimes that America has done so far, and considering that it is a relatively young country its quite large.


No the civil war technically hasn't started.

When Iraqis are killing other Iraqis on a day to day basis I call that civil war.


One Shiia killed a Sunni, then viceversa, that's not a civil war.

I think you will find more than one person has died.

To answer your question VonClausewitz I think that in the long run less damage will be done if countries like America and the UK stop trying to play the puppet masters.

[Loknar]

Here is a link to a list of the war crimes that America has done so far, and considering that it is a relatively young country its quite large.

Actually, no it isn’t. America has been a superpower for 60 years. However, our expansion began back after the revolutionary war. Our nation is not unique no matter how much you want it to be.

In fact, if you want to talk about the most murderous nation...Belgium takes the cake. Look at that they did in the Congo. Look at what France did in Algeria.

About that website... America is the only nation that takes the heat for Dresden even though there was a large British involvement. Was it wrong? Honestly, I feel sad when I read about it. Though I know the importance Dresden was for the Nazis, still the whole damn thing was worse than the a-bombs. It was 1945 so it could be argued that it served no real purpose to bomb it.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWdresden.htm

Though I think this should finally quell the myth that the A-bomb was used on Japan and not Germany because the 'japs' were yellow and not white.

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 08:41 AM


Here is a link to a list of the war crimes that America has done so far, and considering that it is a relatively young country its quite large.

Actually, no it isn’t. America has been a superpower for 60 years. However, our expansion began back after the revolutionary war. Our nation is not unique no matter how much you want it to be.

In fact, if you want to talk about the most murderous nation...Belgium takes the cake. Look at that they did in the Congo. Look at what France did in Algeria.

I didn't say America was the most murderous nation, but it’s far from innocent. I didn't say it was unique but in its short reign as a super power it does have quite an apatite for war.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

I didn't say America was the most murderous nation, but it’s far from innocent. I didn't say it was unique but in its short reign as a super power it does have quite an apatite for war.

so if it's not the most murderous nation whats the point? the fact of the matter is every nation has "dark" side to it's history, there are good and bad people everywhere. The apetite for war is only natural when your trying to secure your place as #1 in the world, WW2 was provoked, and even before Pearl Harbor we were the ones supplying the Brits because Chruchill got on his knees to Roosvelt. War is not the issue we are discussing here, rather atrocities, and quite frankly it's part of war, but anyways the website you posted didn't show that much horror from Americans, i suggest you look at France, Belgium, Russia etc. In fact there is a segment on Somalia, and all the pictures are pretty much of dead AMERICANS!

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by Oh-Dae-[email protected] 28 2006, 07:29 PM
so if it's not the most murderous nation whats the point? the fact of the matter is every nation has "dark" side to it's history, there are good and bad people everywhere. The apetite for war is only natural when your trying to secure your place as #1 in the world.
So what your saying is that imperialism and war crimes are "okay" if your trying to hang on to the position of "worlds only superpower" <_<

[Oh-Dae-Su]

what imperialism man? we are not colonizers like Britain or France or Spain in the 15th 16th 17th centuries&#33; Why are we imperialistic? because we went into Western Europe and liberated it from the Nazi&#39;s and stayed there for a while rebuilding the damn place&#33;? i guess USSR must have been imperialistic as well. But look at the difference of our "imperialism" , Western Europe vs. Eastern Europe. Plus we left Europe, all we have are certain military bases in Germany etc. (so that&#39;s why we are imperialistic? :blink:

what else? Because we went into Korea? ok , well we liberated South Korea from the damn communist North Korean bastards, and look at what our legacy left&#33; SOUTH KOREA&#33; yeah man their complaining a lot about our involvement there :lol:

who else? Japan&#33; ok same story with Korea, look at our legacy, i dont see the Japs complaining much about how their country was fucked up after we took control of it after WW2.

so you only criticize our involvement in places that have gone wrong, like Vietnam and Iraq right now. So why are we imperialistic? because we go into a place and liberate it? in fact every place we have liberated from somebody else, we have after a while given them full authority to their country, examples: Cuba, Phillipines, South Korea, Japan, Western Europe; but you think America is going to just leave and go away without expecting a pay? of course not, America is not going to spill it&#39;s blood liberating a country if it doesn&#39;t think it can gain something, sorry but your going to be bound to America forever, it&#39;s just how it works. At least we don&#39;t fucking colonize you and enslave you.

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by Oh&#045;Dae&#045;[email protected] 28 2006, 07:59 PM


what else? Because we went into Korea? ok , well we liberated South Korea from the damn communist North Korean bastards, and look at what our legacy left&#33; SOUTH KOREA&#33; yeah man their complaining a lot about our involvement there

who else? Japan&#33; ok same story with Korea, look at our legacy, i dont see the Japs complaining much about how their country was fucked up after we took control of it after WW2.

so you only criticize our involvement in places that have gone wrong, like Vietnam and Iraq right now. So why are we imperialistic? because we go into a place and liberate it? in fact every place we have liberated from somebody else, we have after a while given them full authority to their country, examples: Cuba, Phillipines, South Korea, Japan, Western Europe; but you think America is going to just leave and go away without expecting a pay? of course not, America is not going to spill it&#39;s blood liberating a country if it doesn&#39;t think it can gain something, sorry but your going to be bound to America forever, it&#39;s just how it works. At least we don&#39;t fucking colonize you and enslave you.
You are the most naiive person ive ever met.

See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment) about what America did to some of its own people during WW2.

For the rest of American intervention here you go:

1950s
• 1950 - 1953 Korean War.
• 1955 - 1963 US sends military advisors to assist President Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam.
• 1958 US sends troops to assist Lebanese Christian President Camille Chamoun

1960s
• 1962 Overflights of Cuba, followed by naval blockade as part of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
• 1964 - 1975 Vietnam War.
• 1965 Dominican Republic, US President Lyndon Johnson sends 20,000 US troops.
• 1968 US bombs the Ho Chi Minh trail in Cambodia and Laos.
• 1975 US marines capture the SS Mayaguez off the coast of Cambodia.

1980s
• 25 October 1983 US invasion of Grenada.
• 15 April 1986 US warplanes bomb Tripoli and Benghazi in Libya.
• 18 April 1988 strikes against Iranian naval and air forces.
• 1989 US invaded Panama

1990s
• 1990s Intervention in Colombian civil war.
• 1991 Gulf War.
• 1998 US-led bombing campaign against Iraq.
• 1998 US cruise missile attacks against Afghanistan and Sudan.

2000s
• 2001 US invasion of Afghanistan.
• 2003 US invasion of Iraq.
• 2006 -- Pakistan. 17 civilians were killed in an American RQ-1 Predator airstrike on Damadola (Pakistan), near the Afghan border

Covert operations

1940s

• C.I.A. and British M16 put the shau on the Iranian throne 1942.
1950s
• 1953 CIA and British MI6 successfully orchestrate the removal of Iranian prime minister Mohammed Mossadegh.
• 1954 CIA-orchestrated overthrow of elected president Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán in Guatemala.

1960s
• 1961 CIA involvement in the assassination of Rafael Leónidas Trujillo
• 1961 US-sponsored failed invasion of Cuba.
• 1961 - 1962 CIA and Department of Defense covert plans and operations against Fidel Castro.
• 1961-1963 Ecuadorian President José María Velasco Ibarra was overthrown by a military coup in 1961 and replaced with his vice-president Carlos Julio Arosemana, who in turn was overthrown in 1963 and replaced by a more consistently anti-Communist military junta
• 1962 - 1974 Secret War in Laos.
• 1963 US backs coup against South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem
• 1963 - 1964 CIA involvement in riots and violence in Guyana in order to undermine the Marxist People&#39;s Progressive Party and its leader, Cheddi Jagan.
• United States intervention in Chile
• 1967 CIA-organized military operation ends in capture and execution of Che Guevara by the Bolivian Army.
• 1967 CIA-backed military coup ushers in Regime of the Colonels in Greece.

1970s
• 1970 US supported unsuccessful coup against Salvador Allende
• 1979 - 1989 CIA support for the Contras.
• 1979 – 1984 American intervention in civil war in Yemen

1980s
• 1980 Attempt to rescue hostages held by Iran fails.
• 1982-1983 Support for military dictator Efraín Ríos Montt in Guatemala CIA support for the coup that brought him into power.
• 1987 - 1988 Covert anti-Iranian operations in the Persian Gulf.
• 1987 Support to coup against Timoci Bavadra, democratically-elected Prime Minister of Fiji

1990s
• 1991 U.S. Support for ousting Jean-Bertrand Aristide from Haiti

2000s
• 2002 CIA-backed abortive coup against democratically-elected President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela
• 2004 U.S. Support for ousting Jean-Bertrand Aristide from Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide of Haiti. Jean-Bertrand Aristide himself publicly termed it a "coup d&#39;état", and reported the presence of uniformed U.S. military forces. The U.S. government also threatened action against Jamaica in the event that Jamaica were to provide residence to Aristide.
• 2004 Interference in Salvadoran presidential election. US threatened to take reprisals if the country would elect the socialist candidate Schafik Handal
• 2004 Support (along with Spain and Britain) for a failed coup plot against Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo of Equatorial Guinea

[Oh-Dae-Su]

if you think that above is imperialism, than we sure as hell aint by far the only ones, pick a country from Europe, and you&#39;ll see that you can create a timeline like that one ^^

[Lord Testicles]

Originally posted by Oh&#045;Dae&#045;[email protected] 29 2006, 06:37 PM
if you think that above is imperialism, than we sure as hell aint by far the only ones, pick a country from Europe, and you&#39;ll see that you can create a timeline like that one ^^
I think you will find that every nation in europe has been around for far longer than the USA. I didnt say that was imperialism , allthough most of it is, i am mearly pointing out US intervention after 1945, which i think you will find is larger than any other nation after 1945.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

so intervention is imperialism or wrong? you know what im going to make a new thread about this, because this is what pisses me off, you are all so ironic, because i have conflicts inside of me with this.

[IHP]

Oh Sae Du
yes, true, but the it&#39;s not the shiite, its the Shiia. The civil war in Iraq is between the Sunni and Shiia/Shiite (which i think is the same)

Just to clarify this for you.

Sunnis = Sunni Moslems
Shiítes = Shia Moslems

Shía is an adverb.

Do you understand?

[Oh-Dae-Su]

Just to clarify this for you.

Sunnis = Sunni Moslems
Shiítes = Shia Moslems

Shía is an adverb.

Do you understand?

isnt that what i mentioned in the quote you quoted from me?


The civil war in Iraq is between the Sunni and Shiia/Shiite (which i think is the same) :unsure:

[Atlas Swallowed]

In a perfect world the US would rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure they destroyed. Pay reparations to all the innocent people they murdered and deliver the heads of all responsible for the decade long starvation of Iraq and both wars on pikes. After that is done they could get out of Iraq and let them run thier own country however they choose.

[IHP]

Oh Sae Du, if you insist on expressing yourself through "smilies" then I don&#39;t really have a whole lot of time for you.

However I was attempting to educate you on the difference between these words that pertain to the same thing so you may use them correctly in the future. If you choose to ignore it, then that&#39;s upto you. I don&#39;t care really, I just thought you&#39;d like to learn something. No skin off my nose.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

Shiia/Shiite (which i think is the same)

do you not understand what that means? i thank you for reasuring me, but you did not educate me at all, since i already said that ^^ before you came here...

but thank you anyways, professor

[IHP]

No worries tiger. Keep on punching&#39;

[JudeObscure84]

what happened to the iraqi resistence everyone was happy to support? It seems as though it fizzled into blatant terrorism.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Oh&#045;Dae&#045;[email protected] 27 2006, 07:10 PM
Ok, picture this, Shii&#39;a are the minority in Iraq right, and who is the majority Shiia in the muslim world? IRAN. Ok , what does Iran have that is scaring the hell out of the world right now? NUCLEAR WEAPONS&#33; if a civil war happens in Iraq, the Sunnis who are the majority will slaughter the Shiia, if this happens , believe me the Ayatollah of Iran who is the supreme leader, will come under intense i mean intense pressure from his people to do something to save their Shiia brothers. This could possibly be WW3, you would have chaos, and throw Isreal into the mix, because Israel is shitting on their pants right now in the mere thought that Iran has Nuclear capabilities. So anyone with half a brain can infer that no no no, civil war is not the way to solve things, i mean c&#39;mon&#33;&#33; you know this would probably be genocide, since Sunni are the majority. What are you on? and you call the Americans "the killers"&#33;&#33; :rolleyes:
dont know if someone already said this;

Shia are the majority

sunni are the minority

douchebag


and Iran doesnt have nukes

seriously&#33; do you believe all the lies your government feeds you?&#33;?&#33;

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 09:32 PM
what happened to the iraqi resistence everyone was happy to support? It seems as though it fizzled into blatant terrorism.
approx. 10% of attacks are, almost all committed by Al-Qaeda in Iraq

there are loads of other insurgent groups who are against terrorism, some even fought/are fighting Al-Qaeda

[JudeObscure84]

approx. 10% of attacks are, almost all committed by Al-Qaeda in Iraq

there are loads of other insurgent groups who are against terrorism, some even fought/are fighting Al-Qaeda

There are loads who are not affiliated with Al Queda, that still kidnap, behead, and pass out anti-semitic zionist conspiracy literature to entice people to join a "resistence" group to kill troops in Iraq.

Virtually none are really "resistence" groups based on the idea of liberating Iraq for democratic or liberal purposes. Some are for Baathist rule, Islamic, others recruit people through flyers that lie about "zionist" occupation. Others are disgruntled unemployed who sign up for the Mahdi Brigades led by insane in the membrain Muqtada Al Sadr.

Then there are the Badr Crops who fought Al Queda though some branches in the South are conducting terrorist activities while the US turns a blind eye. The other groups fighting Al Queda are the Kurdish Peshmerga and Sunni backed militias funded by the Iraqi ministry of defense. And they both fight for Iraqi Democracy and support the New government and the coalition troops.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 10:23 PM

approx. 10% of attacks are, almost all committed by Al-Qaeda in Iraq

there are loads of other insurgent groups who are against terrorism, some even fought/are fighting Al-Qaeda

There are loads who are not affiliated with Al Queda, that still kidnap, behead, and pass out anti-semitic zionist conspiracy literature to entice people to join a "resistence" group to kill troops in Iraq.

Virtually none are really "resistence" groups based on the idea of liberating Iraq for democratic or liberal purposes. Some are for Baathist rule, Islamic, others recruit people through flyers that lie about "zionist" occupation. Others are disgruntled unemployed who sign up for the Mahdi Brigades led by insane in the membrain Muqtada Al Sadr.

Then there are the Badr Crops who fought Al Queda though some branches in the South are conducting terrorist activities while the US turns a blind eye. The other groups fighting Al Queda are the Kurdish Peshmerga and Sunni backed militias funded by the Iraqi ministry of defense. And they both fight for Iraqi Democracy and support the New government and the coalition troops.
nonsense.

http://www.jihadunspun.com/articles/181220.../ailatir01.html (http://www.jihadunspun.com/articles/18122003-Iraqi-Resistence/ir/ailatir01.html)

there are many, many groups.
most support democracy, all support "some form of democracy"

[JudeObscure84]

http://www.jihadunspun.com/articles/181220.../ailatir01.html

I must be missing the part where they support democracy? Most of these movements are motivated by Islam and or nationalism. By default I would say that the "democratic" fighters indirectly side with the fascistic, islamic and nationalist elements that overwhelm the "resistence" to purge the coalition. Which is exactly what I have been saying all along. The only undemocratic and pedantic group I wish the US would terminate an alliance with is the Badr Corps. Other than that, the coalition plus the Kurdish Peshmerga are strongly in favor of a democratic Iraq and there are no qualms about it.

You would have to presuppose that the US, UK, Italy, Denmark, Holland and other coalition members are imperial capitalists in order to defame the mission in iraq and side with the insurgency.

Other than that, can some please explain to me how this isnt like siding with the fascists upon the US&#39;s entrence into the second World war?

[JudeObscure84]

http://hrw.org/reports/2005/iraq1005/

Iraqi insuregents constitute for the bulk of Iraqi War Crimes in Iraq.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 11:19 PM

http://www.jihadunspun.com/articles/181220.../ailatir01.html

I must be missing the part where they support democracy? Most of these movements are motivated by Islam and or nationalism. By default I would say that the "democratic" fighters indirectly side with the fascistic, islamic and nationalist elements that overwhelm the "resistence" to purge the coalition. Which is exactly what I have been saying all along. The only undemocratic and pedantic group I wish the US would terminate an alliance with is the Badr Corps. Other than that, the coalition plus the Kurdish Peshmerga are strongly in favor of a democratic Iraq and there are no qualms about it.

You would have to presuppose that the US, UK, Italy, Denmark, Holland and other coalition members are imperial capitalists in order to defame the mission in iraq and side with the insurgency.

Other than that, can some please explain to me how this isnt like siding with the fascists upon the US&#39;s entrence into the second World war?
because the US invaded Iraq

the US would never allow the establishment of any non-pro US government in Iraq. Democratic right?

Also, the Badr brigade supports a form of democracy. Most other groups do to.

Even Iran has some form of democracy, in the same way the US has some form of democracy except that in the US you have big business instead of the Guardian Council.

Also
yes they&#39;re imperialist.

[JudeObscure84]

because the US invaded Iraq
On the notion that the Baath Party never met thier cease fire demands.


the US would never allow the establishment of any non-pro US government in Iraq. Democratic right?
It just cant be hostile to western or regional pro-democratic nations.


Also, the Badr brigade supports a form of democracy. Most other groups do to.
The Badr Corps supports an Islamic Republic. Name those other groups in the insurgency that support democratic values.


Even Iran has some form of democracy, in the same way the US has some form of democracy except that in the US you have big business instead of the Guardian Council.
I dont think you can place these moral high standards that nearly no nation follows. The point is that there is democratic freedom in this country vs. the Islamic Republic of Iran.


Also
yes they&#39;re imperialist.

To a Marxist, yes.

[rouchambeau]

I&#39;m afraid I have to say that we should not back out of Iraq. Yes, it was wrong to enter, but were there and there&#39;s nothing we can do about it. If we pulled out now everyone who supported us would be slaughtered just like the Hmong in Vietnam and Laos.