for those who say ALL iraqis don't want us there...

[cosmo]

But I won't forget, and in future world politics the US will have to make amends to regain credibility, and not just for me.

What about Russia? China? France? etc? Oil For Food?

Talk about credibility. Do you not understand that Iraq is heading in the right direction now? As opposed to Saddam being in power, slowly stripping away at the sanctions in order to restart his programs, all the while oppressing and starving the huge shiia majority and the kurds.

And you lash out at the US?

If the Iraqis didn't want us there, there would be mass protests all over your TV screen. What you see now are daily bombings and attacks, that have been cut in half since the Fallujah invasion from 140 attacks a day to 60-70, and are steadily in decline.

All in a country that contains 27 million people.

[Yao]

What about Russia? China? France? etc? Oil For Food?

I've given my thoughts on the two latter ones, the first two have not yet been an issue here. Make it so, and I'll discuss them, too. But now we're talking about the US and Iraq, not Russia or China.

Talk about credibility. Do you not understand that Iraq is heading in the right direction now? As opposed to Saddam being in power, slowly stripping away at the sanctions in order to restart his programs, all the while oppressing and starving the huge shiia majority and the kurds.

Well, putting it together with your post 'The pentagons new map' I definitely challenge the US's credibility. If that guy really has been advising your government, than I fear for the future.
His theories about the Functioning Core vs. the disconnected countries and the Gap are sketching the global situation pretty well, but putting the focus so much on military actions, sheesh. I'd almost think there's only one way to talk, and that's by the gun.

Violence is sometimes nessecary, but it should not be the first option to choose or to take as viewpoint when discussing global changes. I still advocate economical growth, stimulating investments in education/health care (which the Worldbank and IMF also have realised and integrated in their Structural Adjustment Programmes, together with good governance requirements), and strenghtening the states together with shrinking them (centralisation).

I'm still waiting for an American solution that doesn't involve shooting and throwing bombs from the start when it comes to fghting terrorism. Not even a part of it without those ingredients.

So maybe a little challenge for you, and don't take this too heavily: Look at the problems described in your post on the pentagon map, and try and find general solutions to the problems the author describes without going to war. Special ops permitted, on a limited basis. No regime changes from outside, no invasions.

So what is the other way of closing the Gap, and reconnecting the countries in it other than invasion/regime change?

If the Iraqis didn't want us there, there would be mass protests all over your TV screen. What you see now are daily bombings and attacks, that have been cut in half since the Fallujah invasion from 140 attacks a day to 60-70, and are steadily in decline.

All in a country that contains 27 million people.

I think the majority still doesn't want you there; and why there are no mass protests? I don't know, but actually I'm not sure there haven't been any either. In European media different footage has been used in the news about Iraq.

Looking forward to your homework. Feel free to return the favour. :wink:

[toasty]

You kill me how you can turn anything and everything in a right/left issue.

I got to thinking more about this, and you are right, it isn't a right/left issue, and I hereby withdraw my comments to the extent they implied that everyone on the right thinks that way, b/c there are certainly plenty of rational people that happen to fall on the right side of the spectrum.

I should have said "Bush apologists" or something of like import, 'cuz that is really more what I meant.

[Civic_Zen]

Regardless of whether or not the pictures are a bit ironical (since now they have the ability to voice their opinions), the fact remains that we are not wanted there by some, and from some of the polls I was running across in search of the pictures, it looks like by the majority.

Don't you see the point evangelion is trying to make? You make absolutely no sense at all.

As Yao stated, they may not like Saddam but they may consider him less evil than the us.

Saddam better then the US? That is the funniest damn thing I have heard in a long, long, very long time. Even though they are exercising rights which they would have been mowed down for before we went in there and took Saddam down. Once again you make absolutely no sense.

[cosmo]

Re: for those who say ALL iraqis don't want us there...

I've given my thoughts on the two latter ones, the first two have not yet been an issue here. Make it so, and I'll discuss them, too. But now we're talking about the US and Iraq, not Russia or China.

It has everything to do with what you just said. You said the US has to gain back its credibility, when we are unravelling the most corrupt international scheme in modern history, that doesn't involve the US might I add.

Well, putting it together with your post 'The pentagons new map' I definitely challenge the US's credibility. If that guy really has been advising your government, than I fear for the future.
His theories about the Functioning Core vs. the disconnected countries and the Gap are sketching the global situation pretty well, but putting the focus so much on military actions, sheesh. I'd almost think there's only one way to talk, and that's by the gun.

Violence is sometimes nessecary, but it should not be the first option to choose or to take as viewpoint when discussing global changes. I still advocate economical growth, stimulating investments in education/health care (which the Worldbank and IMF also have realised and integrated in their Structural Adjustment Programmes, together with good governance requirements), and strenghtening the states together with shrinking them (centralisation).

I'm still waiting for an American solution that doesn't involve shooting and throwing bombs from the start when it comes to fghting terrorism. Not even a part of it without those ingredients.

So maybe a little challenge for you, and don't take this too heavily: Look at the problems described in your post on the pentagon map, and try and find general solutions to the problems the author describes without going to war. Special ops permitted, on a limited basis. No regime changes from outside, no invasions.

So what is the other way of closing the Gap, and reconnecting the countries in it other than invasion/regime change?

Did you even understand the Pentagon's New Map? It's not about conquering the world with our military. It's about helping countries out of poverty, not by giving them money through marxism, but by bringing them into the flow of globalization and exposing them to international trade and individualism, away from despotism and fascism. That's exactly what happened with Lenin, Marx and Mao. They were anti-capitalist. Stalin and Lenin went into Germany, saw that it was too capitalist, and then went back into Russia to bring it down, and further back in time. Mao did the same with China. Bin laden and all of the tyrants throughout the middle east are doing the exact same thing. As we move into the middle east and give these people equal rights you will slowly start to see these same groups move into sub-saharan Africa to exploit the people in poverty, just as they have always done. These groups are 'pre-economic' in reality. They want to drive society further back in time as time moves on. By bringing the poverty-riden countries into the world of globalization to raise the standard of living, we will have to have military installations in the remote regions in order to stabilize the region for a couple decades. Not forever.

I think the majority still doesn't want you there; and why there are no mass protests? I don't know, but actually I'm not sure there haven't been any either. In European media different footage has been used in the news about Iraq.

That's because the European media exploits the Iraqi people for their advantage. The European media is anti-american, anti-israel at its core. This is well known.

Looking forward to your homework. Feel free to return the favour.

Yea - OK.

[neoee]

Regardless of whether or not the pictures are a bit ironical (since now they have the ability to voice their opinions), the fact remains that we are not wanted there by some, and from some of the polls I was running across in search of the pictures, it looks like by the majority.

Don't you see the point evangelion is trying to make? You make absolutely no sense at all.

I perfectly understand the point evangelion was trying to make and I think my statement makes perfect sense. What part did you not understand, maybe I can clairify it for you? Let me sum it up:
A majority of people do NOT want us in their country (Iraq) regardless of what freedoms we have given them. And while we are trying to install a democracy we are ignoring the very basic principals of it.

As Yao stated, they may not like Saddam but they may consider him less evil than the us.

Saddam better then the US? That is the funniest damn thing I have heard in a long, long, very long time. Even though they are exercising rights which they would have been mowed down for before we went in there and took Saddam down. Once again you make absolutely no sense.

Again what part didn't you understand? Maybe its because of the narrow tunnel from which you choose to view. Some people pray to Satan, and probably believe Christians are evil ones (or their version of God). Not everyone sees it our way. Other countries could possibly see Bush as more 'evil' than Kerry, so with your reasoning some country should come in and replace Bush with Kerry, supporting the minority view, right? After all isn't that what we are doing?

[mixu]

Re: for those who say ALL iraqis don't want us there...

That's because the European media exploits the Iraqi people for their advantage. The European media is anti-american, anti-israel at its core. This is well known.

That's priceless...

:ROFLMAO:

[Yao]

Re: for those who say ALL iraqis don't want us there...

Did you even understand the Pentagon's New Map? It's not about conquering the world with our military. It's about helping countries out of poverty, not by giving them money through marxism, but by bringing them into the flow of globalization and exposing them to international trade and individualism, away from despotism and fascism. That's exactly what happened with Lenin, Marx and Mao. They were anti-capitalist. Stalin and Lenin went into Germany, saw that it was too capitalist, and then went back into Russia to bring it down, and further back in time. Mao did the same with China. Bin laden and all of the tyrants throughout the middle east are doing the exact same thing. As we move into the middle east and give these people equal rights you will slowly start to see these same groups move into sub-saharan Africa to exploit the people in poverty, just as they have always done. These groups are 'pre-economic' in reality. They want to drive society further back in time as time moves on. By bringing the poverty-riden countries into the world of globalization to raise the standard of living, we will have to have military installations in the remote regions in order to stabilize the region for a couple decades. Not forever.

I did understand the New Map, but I was surprised by the military focus of it. This could have been the policy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or Development, but it is in the end a military dictate issued by the pentagon.

Development should not be a case for the military: they provide solutions, but are agressive in those solutions, which is of course the nature of the military.
A military solution comes fast, but it is easy scoring at high costs and the long-term effects of such an approach are still debatable.

The results of diplomacy and development aid are unfortunately not very easy to spot, but they're there. It takes longer, much longer for such results to become visible, and because they come slowly you'll hardly even notice them.

Now I may surpise Civic, Runningman, Mylexicon and you with this, but I used to be in favour of going into Iraq to oust Saddam...it is just the way it was done that made me swing the other way. That's when I focused on other ways of dealing with this problem and became an opponent of this war.

Also, this whole thing has shown the fragility of international treaties and bonds, like the UN Security Council: it didn't stop the US from going in. The UN and EU were divided, and countries decided on their own to join or not to join the alliance. In fact the whole idea of 'working together as a unity' has been shattered by this war. Europa has been divided by it, not along clear-to-see lines, but here is disagreement and therefore less coherence.

The predicament is this: America wants to be proactive in connecting the disconnected countries, but uses it's military as the main mean to do that, Europe sits back as usual and tries to do the trick by talking only. Neiher of the two approaches will work, but if you could find a way in the middle, I think that would yield resuls.
America is angry with Europe for being too passive, Europe is angry with America for being too agressive. Why the fuck don't they team up: America eases down a little, and Europe gets the fuck off it's lazy arse and starts really doing things? I even agreed with Phantom on this: "A euro cocktail with a splash of balls". His words.

[ftc]

Re: for those who say ALL iraqis don't want us there...

[cut]"No Bush, No Saddam." Funny, but isn't Bush the reason there is no Saddam?? Ungrateful fucks.
...
[cut]Even though America is the reason they have that freedom. Right...and our soldiers are dying for these fucks??

it's easy to label them "fucks" when not everyone agrees with the so called "liberation", huh? pfff... i mentioned this in another post when someone was getting a bit carried away with their point of view and was slipping in the racial comments... i think everyone should be a little more concerned with what they post and what language they use.

I really could care less about what happens to Iraq now that Saddam is out of power. I wish we would pull out and let them fend for themselves and see how many public demonstrations and "Save our heritage" rallies they have with all of the Saddam loyalist running the show. But I'm sure they would blame us for that too.

would be scary if bush was as extreme as you and actually acted this out when the administration & military got a reality check after riding in with tanks only to realize that the general public wasn't basking them in flowers and cheers throughout the streets

[runningman]

the language is a sign of both sides frustration to try to fix the problem.. nobody really means "fucks" or "muslims are like cancer", "nuke 'em" it is an expression out of frustration to fix the problem.. obviously i am not for nukes and killing every muslim on the planet.. evangelion doesn't think they are all fucks.. as for telling us what we can say it is our right.. now it is the rright of all Iraqies.. and Afghanies.. it is nice to see them in the streets wanting us out.. i would want people out as well.. if the USA liberated canada for some reason i would want there soldiers out as well saying it is a canadian issue and we would deal with it.. but that might not be the best thing for the country.. When the UK left canada and pretty much anywhere in the world where the UK was they left order.. a working government a judicial system and trade with other countries.. that is what the USA is trying to accomplish in these times of getting Iraq on its feet.. It will be good come Feb. when Iraq will rule itself.. and Afghanistan for that matter.. watch in 10-15 years Afghanistan will be a much more technologically advanced.. as well as Iraq.. that makes for happier people which makes life worth living instead of strapping a bomb on yourself and driving into a police station killing fellow countrymen..

[robprunzit]

I know my posting is alittle off the topic your all on at this moment, but as I read thru the beginning of this thread, I had to add a line to what I thought after reading Toasty on his Dec 1st posting below

Of course not ALL Iraqis want us dead, dismembered and gone any more than ALL Iraqis view us as liberators, practice the same religion, like string cheese or anything else. SOME Iraqis view the situation differently than others. I don't disagree with your point, but this is not news in Iraq or anywhere else in the world.

This way of thinking is part of the problem, especially when all the media shows us is death and angry people. Btw, most of the angry people are not from Iraq. Freedom is why the Iraqi men keep on dieing as policemen, and they keep signing up to be policeman. The pictures describe exactly the soldiers feelings in being there, and when the quotes of 50 million people free, this is what they are referring to.

If only the media didn't have a bias, you might see how 'Good' news, 'IS' news.

Thanks for the pictures.