Stay long enough to build a McDonald's in every population center, build at least 30 golf courses. Then pull the troops out, everything will be fine(till the oil runs out).

 

As my brother said, "We shouldn't be dropping bombs. We should be dropping hot tubs and six packs."

I'm of the "You broke it, you bought it," too, just like Loc. We were lied to in order to get us into the war, but we went more-or-less willingly, as a country. Before we went in, the country was ruled by a vicious dictator, who would kill anyone who stood against him. That resulted in tens of thousands of deaths.

But, the country was stable. Sunnis were marrying Shiites. Women could go to college, and didn't have to go around covered up. Iraq was the most secular country in the middle east, and becoming more so all the time. Water and electricity were readily available, and people could walk down the street without worrying about being shot either by an invading force, or by one of their own countrymen.

Now Baghdad doesn't have regular electricity. There isn't sufficient potable water. The death toll over the last five years is an order of magnitude greater than all of Hussein's regime. The quality of life for the living is atrocious. Mosques and markets are blown up regularly.

There is no solution. None. We won't be able to rebuild until their civil war is over. Our presence is exacerbating the problem, giving the resistance a rallying point. Their government isn't moving towards democracy -- it's in the middle of anarchy, and sliding into chaos.

Here's what I think we should do, from the standpoint of what's best for Iraq:

We should pull out, and put all our forces guarding the oil wells. Stop all oil production. The oil belongs to Iraq, after all. Tell the Iraqis that they can have their oil back once they've put a stable government in place, *any* stable government, someone to whom we can hand the keys to the oil fields.

Provide scholarships to American universities to those who were going to university in Iraq, so they can continue their education while their country stabilizes. This has the added benefit of exposing them to US culture, which isn't bad, aside from the fact we're uber-conservative assholes. Hire hookers to make sure they fall in love with American culture. Then send them back home. Their scholarships are contingent on them going back to Iraq to help rebuild.

Then we should drop hot tubs and six packs.

That's just a quick, off-the-top-of-my-head idea. I'm just making shit up, but somebody's gotta do something. We're not winning in Iraq, unless by "winning" you mean, totally fucking everything and everyone up.

the situation is much to complex for any fourm answers, we really cannot give an accurate plan by such means, expecially with our lack of internal knowledge (ie. presidential knowledge... seriously... hehe ). But it really comes down to 2 options,

 

Will America do whats right for America?

or

Will America do whats right for the World?

 

Vietnam was lost militarily, but won culturally with globalization. The cold war was not one with better military and weapons but with cheeseburgers, rock-n-roll and Hollywood. There is no defence against Ronald McDonald, Elvis, Heavy Metal and Disney for the kids.

As for Al-Qaeda, air drop Victoria's secret catalog's across the middle east. Open a store in Mecca. Have the CIA start a rumor than in Western Religions, you get 92 nymphomaniacs(better than virgins, they know what they're doing) in Paradise as long as you don't kill anyone.

 

 

 

 

 

Well thats just it, it doesnt matter which option they pick, their both acceptable, they both have positives and negatives to be sure... but they cannot pick "both or neither", as it only comes with pitfalls

I'd be just tickled if our next president (assuming he or she is a Democrat, since McCain would never do this) started off his or her presidency by issuing a huge apology to the Middle East - to the people of Iraq in particular.

A little humility could go a long way.

Everything I know I learned in kindergarten.

Yeah, I'd have to say, this would be a good start. Followed by some serious action in proving the humility and contrition, we might even be able to leave Iraq with a bit of humble honour, though we'll never be able to remove our disgrace.

But a simple, "We're sorry we killed all those people" would go a long way.

What the hell would  our 'culture' do for a society where it is legal to marry underage women on a temporary basis??? Mu'tah

Let alone the 'Nikah misyar' marriage where sex is the only connection between the man and woman. He owes no money for child support either and can have multiple misyar arrangements. She has the right to charge him for each encounter, but if the price is too high then he can merely dissolve the arrangement and walk away.

 

Honestly, do we have ANYTHING that can compete with that?

We sit around watching E! television thinking "Mmm-Mmmm. Boy, I sure would like a piece of Lindsay/Britney/Cameron/whomever."  Meanwhile, Islamic middle-aged men are negotiating with 'Daddy' over the dowry paid to bang his hot tan 16 yr. old daughter for 10 hours.

The 'beat them with our culture' idea is lame at best.

 

American culture, for as much as it may be lacking, is definitely something that cannot be resisted.

Get rid of the trade embargoes on Iran, on Saudi Arabia and the other nations in that region. Not even the Berlin wall could stand up to the Big Mac and Coca Cola.

Oh, yay. More privo-anarchistic 'noble savage' bullshit.

Can you prove we've stopped evolving? I think that's abit of an assumption. By all means,feel free to go live in a mud hut somewhere, but I think it would be pretty silly,and a waste of hundreds of generations' efforts, to revert back yo the Bronze Age because we're having some problems.For all we know people say this stuff ever few hundred years.

I'll admit in not too versed on evolution. I've often read though that evolution doesn't work towards an end goal,so it wouldn't seem to match for humans to know be suitably evolved and now stop. I agree with you that our capacity for artifical selection has overcome natural selection. So I suppose in that way we have stopped.

It's more than an assumption -- it's ludicrous. You can't just step outside nature. You can change your environment, but you cannot stop natural processes. At least, not without removing all elements of the process. (A big solar event might do it, at least for earth.)

Of course we are evolving. One thing we are doing that is a part of evolution: we are increasing the diversity of alleles. The greater the diversity, the greater the chance of survival during the next sudden major environmental shift. Most of us might night survive, but some of us will most likely survive. And as long as people are breeding, evolution is occurring. Natural selection is not evolution. It's merely one (admittedly important) mechanism in the process. As long as we are still bound by genes, we are part of that process. We are evolving to live in cities, and eat terrible, over-processed food, for instance.

As for artificial guidance of evolution: that won't happen in our lifetimes. Maybe in a few generations, but only after many more problems are solved. Right now, the human race is still dominated by random breeders, rather than genetic engineering, or even selective breeding.

 

That's still not artificial guidance. That's simply manipulating our environment. That's really not much different than a beaver building a dam, or a raven dropping a clam from a great height to smash open the shell, or an otter doing the same thing (smashing the shell) with a rock. That hasn't stopped evolution from working on us. It's just allowed us to make our lives easier, ensuring more of us survive.

I think I see what you're getting at -- that we are changing our environment intentionally, and our selection follows that intentional manipulation of our environment. And that's true. I guess I just take exception to the term "artificial guidance," which implies a sort-of intentional manipulation of our gene pool. In fact, we are still part of nature, and still subject to natural laws. Our manipulation of the environment affects our gene selection, but not in any intentional fashion. It's still just nature doing its stuff. It's still natural evolution.

I'd go as far as to say our manipulation of our environment is just as natural as the beaver building its dam. The "artificial" distinction in this context is misleading.

Once we start large-scale genetic manipulation of our genome, we can say we're artificially manipulating evolution. Until then, it's just nature.

At least, that's how I view it. As per usual, I could very well be wrong.

That's pretty much what I figured you were getting at. To me, the things humans do is part of nature. The whole argument that we are removed from nature is just an artefact of thinking we are somehow above other animals, and separate from (or masters of) the world. That's the part with which I disagree. The otter's use of a rock to get at food is no different than us using a bow and arrow (or .30-.30, or a supermarket) to get at food. It's still part of nature. So, though we influence our own environment to a larger degree than otters or ravens or beavers, our difference is one of magnitude, not substance. The substance, as far as evolution is concerned, is identical.

Of course, I suspect it's more a matter of semantics than actual conceptualization. I think the real discussion we're having is whether humans have removed themselves from nature.

Heh. Isn't that the case for all of us? I doubt there's many people who are willing to admit they are average, or worse yet, below average.

Of course, those of us who are superior have a more refined certainty. And better taste. Not that we taste better, though we probably do.

In relation to evolution, this is still simply a modification of the environment, not substantially different from animals that use tools to acquire their food. We are adapting to a strangely modified environment, but we are doing so in just exactly the same way as if these substances did occur in nature. I don't see how this affects the natural process of evolution, other than to adapt us to artificial chemicals (for instance). The process of evolution doesn't change, and so is still natural.

Artificial evolution would be to pre-adapt a species to an environment via direct genetic meddling (DGM). Otherwise, we're just taking advantage of a natural process. Hell, human evolution isn't even as artificial as the domestication of bovines and dogs. That's what gets me: we're more careful with our pets and sources of food than we are ourselves.

Of course, now I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing. You have an excellent point, but I'll be damned if I admit it.

It depends on the current metric of valuation. Monetarily, probably not. For many uses, they are of exactly the same value, as they are essentially the same thing. As an analogy for human evolution, it doesn't work because an artificial diamond is grown in the lab, using methods different from the methods that produce natural diamonds. In human evolution, the methods haven't changed, just the environment.

Hah! I'm just quibbling again. 'cause I can.

Me neither. I like pointless discussions. Of course, we've completely hijacked this thread, which was supposed to be all about Iraq.

I have been greatly enjoying it, though. Perhaps we should create a new thread?

Okay. I created a new thread. I took the liberty of quoting you. Hope you don't mind. If so, I'll apologize profusely. Really, I will.

Actually Iraq has already by corrupted by US values. Number of cellphones in 2003 in Iraq-zero, number in 2008-7 million and growing. Look at the news videos and spot US corruption at work. Iraq will never go back to the repressive society it was. They have seen and used US culture. Coke, Big Macs, Levis, Porno, and cellphones will beat them just like the Iron curtain.