Wow Kerry took the Florida primary!

[Sourskunk]

But I disagree that we're giving freedom at the point of a gun, that's an oxymoron. Last I checked, we weren't putting a gun to the head of the Iraqi council to create a constitution. In fact, I find the phrase absurd and as a final desperate grab by Pete and you to object to or ignore post-war results where you have a very weak argument instead of objecting to pre-war methods where you have a solid argument.

What we did was liberate at the point of a gun to the head of oppressors, not to the people we are liberating. All we can ever do is remove the oppressors (oh, pardon my error, I forgot Sadaam was "democratically elected"), it will be up to the people of Iraq to choose freedom from here. And I agree, at this point, we're at a wait and see scenario. I do not claim that analogies to the past mean certainty of the future, only a certainty that we must try.

That leads me back full circle to my original point. When push comes to shove, you're relying on predictions when they haven't panned out too well in the past and in which you can't seem to establish any historical context for them (after all, that's how people make predictions, off analogy to the past, not gut feeling). In fact, just for the record, bear with me as I go through a few predictions that haven't been quite vindicated yet.

1) Prediction: The rising up of the Arab street.
Reality: No major groundswell of prolonged rioting can be pointed to in any country. Fear and anger in some sectors yes but no unstability. In fact, the pro-freedom forces in Iran, using Iraq and Afghanistan as moral support, are in fact rising and threatening the Iranian theocracy.

2) Prediction: A huge expansion of terrorist recruitment and an explosion of terrorist acts
Reality: We've had a number attacks but nothing like the daily bombings the fearmongers were predicting

3) Prediction: Loss of whatever friendly support we'd gotten from Arab countries or the toppling of any pro-US (or more realistically anti-terrorism) by Muslum fanatics.
Reality: Well, I'll just name countries, I'll leave it to you to fill in the blanks. Pakistan. Lybia. Saudi Arabia. Kuwait. There may be more but that's enough.

4) Prediction: Quagmire in Afghanistan
Reality: Please allow me a moment to blow a raspberry to the Taliban. Pffttt!!! =D

5) Prediction: Quagmire in Iraq
Reality: Invasion in 3 weeks. Shift of focus in terrorists from attacking occupying troops to attacking Iraqi citizens. The success in Al Qaeda's strategy can be seen in the creation of the Iraqi constitution. Pfft to Zarqawi. Many pffts in fact.

6) Prediction: Thousands or even hundreds of thousands of both invading troops and civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Reality: Only hundreds of thousands of dead are found in those mass graves the UN wanted to ignore.

7) Prediction: Arabs can't handle democracy
Reality: Still a wait and see but two constitutions later and compromise on the role of Islam in Iraqi government, not a prediction I'd invest stock in if you expect an expected return ;)

Shall I keep going or have I made my point? You keep making predictions, we'll keep acting and see if they pan out.

I appreciate the conversation, hope you do too :)

[Sourskunk]

I have no idea why that made laugh but it did.

[Sourskunk]

Hopefully it will never come to that but yes, if the United States just up and vanished tomorrow, I'd see not reason they wouldn't move to Canada and Great Britain next. It's not something I'd wish on anyone, no matter the result.

[Freepaperclips]

Oil, many Canadian companies were trying to muscle in on contracts too.

[Freepaperclips]

I just bought that one today, myself.

[Freepaperclips]

Not to meantion the fact that the Saudis are just plain creepy.

Sorry, all rhetoric aside, the House of Saud is too d*** dangerous to mess with right now. and does this mean you would have supported an attack on them, or are you just making a point?

[Freepaperclips]

All law, not just international. Just look at the drug trade for proof.

[kandrathe]

But if you get inside the terrorist mind, it's not just about the US. It's about Islam, and the humiliation of Islam. It's about the tolerance and decadence in the west, Madonna, Britteny Spears, Micheal Jackson, Prince, and every other western pop crotch grabing icon. It's about the existence of Isreal, and those that support it's existence. It's about oil money giving feudal kingdoms vast power, and wealth and power being wielded by tyrannts who oppress their own people. It's about the projection of western military power around the globe, which the US is leader, but NATO and any UN force is just as culpable.

They hate Canada too. They will use, and simultaneously hate your freedom. If you think that your sympathies mean anything to them, you are deluded. If you are not wearing your Amama or Burqua, and adhering to the five pillars of the faithful, then you are the infidel and the enemy.

[nobbie]

Yesterday, the socialist party won in Spain because the conservatives/Aznar had (probably) lied regarding the recent terrorist bomb attack. I hope Blair and Bush will follow soon :)

[NiteFox]

Blair's not gonna lose. Disgusting as it seems.

It's not that he'll wind due to being a good PM (He's not. His home policies have literally crippled Britain in each and every way), but due to a lack of decent opposition.

[Sir_Die_alot]

Yesterday, the socialist party won in Spain because the conservatives/Aznar had (probably) lied regarding the recent terrorist bomb attack. I hope Blair and Bush will follow soon :)

I'm not quite sure how you can "lie" about an unfininshed investigation. When you have a local terrorist organization it's pretty logical to look at them closely.

It is shaping up to be an Al Queida attack, a shame the spanish reaction is to run and hide rather than gain more resolve. They hit them because they haven't been able to hit us, it's just that simple. Look at the socialist party's solution to this: bring Iraq soldiers home. Wow that's sending a strong message they want us out of Iraq so we are leaving. Do what terrorists want and they will leave you alone. Great international policy. <_<

[--Pete]

Hi,

a final desperate grab by Pete and you to object to or ignore post-war results

No, it's the lying scumbags who got us into this mess that are now trying to justify the invasion after the fact by the glorious future they project for Iraq. And it's their ignorant (of history, of Islam, of how democracies come about) supporters that buy into this glorious fantasy. The claim that Iraq war 2 was justified because of the good it will do is, at best, premature and most likely will turn out to be as accurate as WMD.

However, since the result will not be clear for at least a few years, the only guidance is history. Thus, discussing this with those who either don't know or choose to ignore history is a waste of time. I'd recommend you educate yourself before getting into an argument, but that would be a waste, You either already have, and are putting partisanship before your knowledge, or you don't care to.

--Pete

[Sourskunk]

Holding so hard to blaming ETA looked like, and probably was, a political ploy and they got quite a bit of backlash from that. But there's no doubt it was an interesting development that many people did react to a terrorist attack by seeking full retreat. We'll see what happens from there.

[--Pete]

Hi,

But there's no doubt it was an interesting development that many people did react to a terrorist attack by seeking full retreat.

The fact is that we (the USA) have no support for our actions in Iraq with the *people* of the world. We have a little support with some of the governments, either because the leaders involved are pro-USA or because the governments involved are dependent (or hope to be) on US largess. Given *any* excuse, the populations of the governments that support us are likely to throw said governments out. Hell, wait half a year and that might happen here.

Does the USA need the support of the rest of the world? Not all of it, but at least some of it. If we do a good enough job of alienating all the world, then history indicates we'll have done a damn fine job of destroying ourselves.

The difference between the Bush administration and a group of intelligent people is not acting in self-interest, everyone does that. It's acting in *enlightened* self interest.

--Pete

[Sourskunk]

I've provided the educational basis for my reasoning on the good this can cause. I don't pretend that the means going in are controversal and I don't like ends justify the means arguments any more than anybody else. Bush could probably done a whole lot better job trying to sell it and at least reduce the rancor it caused on both ends. And if you believe Bush distorted or lied about reasoning going in, fine, I understand

But that's not the point. To provide justification for your pre-war assumptions, you're trying to talk down post-war results without offering anything other than emotion for your support because of your partisanship towards Bush. I could give a crap about Bush myself, I have plenty of issues I don't like him over. What I want is to find solutions to terrorism and analyze what have been the results, whether good or bad, of what's happened so far. If a guy with a D by his name is the one that will work to end it, great. I'm frantically waiting for them to recognize that it's an issue and talk about it.

Sir, don't lecture me about education or history and partisanship when you don't bring up even the slightest historical backing for your rebuttle and fall back into talking about Bush is a liar in a thread where I've discussed his name one time in this subthread and only then to say I agreed with his policy independant of and before Bush declared it.

I want results, not carping and belittling about the results because of people that don't like whoever is the president at the time. I felt the same way under Clinton. So don't lecture me on partisanship. I find the whole political dance obscene. Do you have anything to add other than bile?

[Sourskunk]

Remember that Aznar's group was predicted to win before the attack, although narrowly. The reaction to the attack, both by the spin doctors in the Popular party and the people is what led to their defeat.

For some reason, a majority appeared to be planning to vote for the Populars before the attack when they all knew about Iraq and such. It's the shift in 3 days that's important.

But sure, I'm sure a lot of that vote was a "no more working with Bush" vote. Don't dispute it.

[Sourskunk]

I don't think you'll be able to convince Canadians that the terrorists really view them as a threat.

[--Pete]

Hi,

trying to talk down post-war results without othering anything other than emotion for your support

Tell you what, give me one example where a democracy invaded a non-democratic country, imposed democracy, moved out, and the imposed democracy survived one decade after the invader left.

What I want is to find solutions to terrorism and analyze what have been the results, whether good or bad, of what's happened so far.

Yeah, but to do so you need to understand how things evolve on the world scale. And to do *that* you need to know some history. If every time a certain situation arose the outcome was negative, it takes ignorance or partisanship (or optimism bordering on idiocy) to expect different results the next time that situation occurred. But that is *exactly* what the "at least we brought democracy to Iraq" fools are claiming. Will this be the exception -- possible but not probable.

Ignorance? Yeah, it is ignorant to bring up terrorism in a discussion on the invasion of Iraq.

Do you have anything to add other than bile?

At least my bile has some substance. Unlike the regurgitations of those who ignorantly continue to repeat the administration's party line.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

Remember that Aznar's group was predicted to win before the attack, although narrowly. The reaction to the attack, both by the spin doctors in the Popular party and the people is what led to their defeat.

Apparently, the people changed their mind during the second half of the election day: "The conservatives' defeat was unexpected. Pre-election polls had projected the Popular Party, led by Mariano Rajoy, would win comfortably, and even some exit polls Sunday showed it might win."

Seems that the election was close, "But when the ballots were tallied, the Socialists netted 10.9 million to the PP's 9.6 million. Turnout was 77 percent". Close enough that the uncertainty in polls would have failed to call it anyway.

Did some people change their minds? Sure. Did the Popular Party have the lead prior to the attacks because it supported the USA or in spite of that fact? From other polls I've seen on support for the USA in European countries, I'd say the latter. Each individual assigns different importance to different issues. The attack probably changed individual's assessment of the *importance* of supporting the USA rather than their support position overall. Those that were willing to vote Popular *in spite* of the Popular's position on Iraq decided that that issue had become more important. Sufficiently so that they voted the other way. Or not. Tentative guesses based on incomplete evidence are worth little.

News quotes taken from http://www.comcast.net/News/INTERNATIONAL/...7356bf336c.html

--Pete

[Sourskunk]

Tell you what, give me one example where a democracy invaded a non-democratic country, imposed democracy, moved out, and the imposed democracy survived one decade after the invader left.

That's easy, Japan. I don't here them screaming occupation. Now that said, yes, I know we still have some troops protecting Japan because we limited them to a small army after WWII but that's purely for protection from military invasion from countries like China. It has absolutely zero to do with putting down revolutionary unrest and you and I both know that if a single American never stepped foot on the island, that Japanese society would not crumble tomorrow. That risk ended decades ago unless you want to point to the subway terrorist attack in Japan.

I would have said Germany but we had to keep a large amount of troops in West Germany due to the Soviet Union and I suppose you could call that "oppressive".

It doesn't have to be the democratic republic of the US. Given the Kurd/Shi/Sunni situation in Iraq, and the warlord situation of Afghanistan, they're probably going to have to come up with something quite unique. If Bush had handed either country a copy of the US Constitution, I would have suggested an amendment to our constitution that the president of the US needs to beaten with a whip daily by the next lottery winner.

Yeah, but to do so you need to understand how things evolve on the world scale. And to do *that* you need to know some history.

Well, I'm listening, educate me because I have not the slightest clue what you're talking about until you say it.

But that is *exactly* what the "at least we brought democracy to Iraq" fools are claiming.

Agreed, it's way to early too beat our chests and declare success. But you're expressing defeat. Too early to call both and both sides are trying to justify emotional investment that haven't been verified yet. That includes Bush declaring all but "Morning in Iraq". He's got a whole mess of jabs coming for his PR debacle. Dump this whole "pro Bush/anti Bush" standoff because you're the only one swinging in that fight. I could care less about the presidential horserace unless it has something to do with either guy's articulation of how they're going to fight the war on terrorism. I'm not going to apologize for thinking it's the most important issue right now.

Ignorance? Yeah, it is ignorant to bring up terrorism in a discussion on the invasion of Iraq.

As I said, Iraq's connection to terrorism was weak, especially compared to all the other players in the world. But it is true that terrorism is central to the rebuilding, both by the flocking of terrorists to Iraq, and the hope, whether delusional or not, that a peaceful Iraq won't have citizens willing to go into the business of terrorism when they can go into the business of building, I don't know, houses. That's the argument in any case. Whether it works, I don't know. But I refuse to let a bunch of nay-sayers tell me it's doomed before any evidence of such can be pointed to. And I refuse to let a bunch of yay-sayers say it's already succeeded. But I admit I can see more evidence coming from the pro side right now than the nay side right now. Pardon me for expecting a position based on ARGUMENT!

At least my bile has some substance.

Where? Maybe you guys rehashed this argument way back and I missed it. I've lurked here only for a couple months so maybe I missed what you said. So link me to some thread where this brilliance of history is contained in. Put me in my place. If you have a point, I'll be glad to acknowledge it.

Go ahead. I've made my case. Onus is on you now.