Watcher, I'm not telling you what America is laking.  You tell me.  I'm not American and judging by the standard of living indexes I've seen, being in the top ten or top 20 is being among the best, but there's a large divide between America and Sweden, for instance.  That is, I'm sure there's something missing.  Again, I only asked the question because you assume the Iraq people were missing something before their cities were disseminated.  Don't answer this question, but think about what they have now that they didn't before, or what they haven't got now that they did before.  I don't think refugee camps equate with previous living conditions for most of that country.

Also, don't insinuate that I don't want America to exist.  There are people, however, that don't.  And you have yet to offer a policy your country should pursue beyond what I can call just better than terrorism.  I was actually making a little joke, next time I'll write j/k in the parenthesis as well.

Beyond Saving, I'm not going to educate you about the second world war or about how America is not responsible for democracy in Germany.  That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard.  And what d you mean, 'The Brits played a much larger role in India, Australia and Canada.'  The United States has nothing to do with democracy in Canada.  This is getting to be stupid.  I don't recall ever learning the part where Britain had a much larger role in the institution of democracy in Canada and America had only a small role.  Perhaps you can educate me about what part of Canada's constitutional monarchy America had a role in forming?

I'm not leaving the lines of debate that directly concern the OP again and I'm not responding to the responses to my posts.  I don't feel it would actually go anywhere and it's not particularly relevant or helpful. I also don't wish to engage in debate over two different versions of history and other complete nonsense.

I made my argument concerning Iraq.  America should leave.  America is not the world's police.  Circumventing all international bodies to invade countries for its own purpose against, overwhelming international opposition is a very poor way to promote freedom and democracy.  Continued time in Iraq will only increase American debt and put further stains on the American economy.  It also fosters even more loathing for your country based on its past foreign policy and its present foreign policy.  Foremost, I have yet to see how the Iraqi people are benefiting by continued occupation and the aftermath of a very destructive war.  I cannot see how America will make this better and I do not see evidence that America has any interest to actually do anything about the war ravaged state of Iraq.

(If I read again about how America saved the people from Saddam, I'll go mad.  That was not the supposed reason for entering Iraq in the first place, it is entirely made up.  There are worse dictators in the world presently, with far smaller militaries than Iraq's that are in far greater states of destitution.  Perhaps I would agree had the United States gone after an African nation with the intention of freeing the people from an oppressive and genocidal regime, but instead it went into Iraq after weapons that never existed for purposes which have not been fully disclosed to the public!)

I sinceryly don't hope you think that 9/11 started this just out of no where, that it was a complete act of religious beliefs backed by no other reason that the US is the devil.

I never stated that America was solely responsible for democracy anywhere. Germany was occupied by Alliance forces, a good portion of which were American. We played a role in the surrender of the German government in WWI which led to Germanys first attempt at democracy and toppled the third reich in WWII causing the current government of Germany was born. Then we played a much larger role in the events that led to the tearing down of the Berlin Wall which led to reunification of Germany and a tendency towards a more direct democracy. How is that absurd? I believe that without America, Germany probably wouldn't be a democracy today. Yeah, we didn't write their constitution and tell them how to set up their government, we don't do that anywhere, but we did topple the previous regime and make it possible.

I never said the US had anything to do with democracy in Canada, I atributed it to the UK. Although the US did play a minor role by having a successful revolution against Britain and setting up a democratic-republic. Which eventually led to Britain weakening its monarchy. If the American revolution had failed it would be very interesting to see if democracies would have sprung up anywhere. I think a case could be made either way.   

P.S. The American soldiers saved the Iraqi people from Saddam and made it possible for them to hang him like a rag doll. In the long run the people of Iraq will be far better off, as long as we don't leave until the country is a self-supporting form of democracy. Semper Fi.

you talk about things in such simplistic terms that it makes me wonder if you actually think they are that simple. clearly they are not. for example you talk about people in terms of good and bad which is just ridiculous.

perhaps you have a very refined understanding of the current political situation in iraq and afghanistan, the history of those countries, the past century of us involvement in the regions, post wwii history, and imposed democracies.  you're not displaying it here.

   i never said that democracy can't be forced. i said it's not the place of the us (which has a shaky democracy itself) to go around invading countries, destabilizing entire regions, killing and displacing civilians, and putting in governments that will comply with rules that the us imposes on everyone else but doesn't actually follow.

according to a study conducted by two political scientists named greig and enterline which was reported in the washington post, in the last 200 years imposed democracies usually failed unless there was a large occupying force that halts any insurgencies from the start, a clear message that the occupying force will remain indefinitely, an ethnically homogeneous population, and neighboring democratic nations. none of those thing are true about iraq.

iraq is not even a country anymore it doesn't really matter if the us stays or not. it is now broken up into separate regions controlled by militias just like the us wanted. the majority of the violence came from ethnic cleansing which has left tens of thousands of civilians dead and millions displaced (a refugee crisis for the entire region, another great gift from the us). now that the shiites have basically won the civil war either the americans will leave and the rest of the sunnis will be massacred or they'll stay in with case the shiites will redirect their attention toward killing americans. 

none of that was happening under saddam so will you stop parroting your stupid line about "would you rather have saddam? would you rather have saddam?" if i lived in iraq or afghanistan i would rather live at the time when american airstrikes weren't blowing up my fuckin house and my kid could go outside and play without getting their arm or their leg blown off by an unexploded cluster bomb ordinance. 

if you are really worried about terrorism and hatred of the us then stop your stupid interventionists policies to overthrow tyrannical governments that the us put there in the first place. and have some respect for human life and dignity. you tell me to show respect for veterans but then you talk about mass death of others like it's a tea party and it's repulsive to me. if you were ever in a situation to have that kind of technology used against you in such a manner you would change your tune pretty quick.

"None of this was happening under Saddam"?

Ok, let's look at this fairy tale setting that was happening under Saddam.  Let's look at what a huggy-feely world Saddam's Iraq was.  Where your children could play outside happily with no fear of danger.

Halabja, Iraq.  March 16th 1988.  On this day that city became the target of conventional and chemical bomb attacks.  By it's own fucking country.  Name the American city that came under bomb attacks by America.

Halabja was bombarded more than twenty times by Saddam regime's warplanes with chemical and cluster bombs.  In the streets and alleys, corpses piled up over one another.  Children, while playing in front of their houses were killed by cyanide gas.

Women and children formed 75 percent of the dead and wounded.  Estimated 5 thousand dead in this one incident.

"A survivor described the attack: "I got some gas in my eyes and had trouble breathing. You always wanted to vomit and when you did, the vomit was green." He said he passed "hundreds" of dead bodies. Those around him died in a number of ways, suggesting a combination of toxic chemicals. Some "just dropped dead" while others "died of laughing." Still others took a few minutes to die, first "burning and blistering" or coughing up green vomit."

"It was life frozen. Life had stopped, like watching a film and suddenly it hangs on one frame. It was a new kind of death to me. You went into a room, a kitchen and you saw the body of a woman holding a knife where she had been cutting a carrot. (...) The aftermath was worse. Victims were still being brought in. Some villagers came to our chopper. They had 15 or 16 beautiful children, begging us to take them to hospital. So all the press sat there and we were each handed a child to carry. As we took off, fluid came out of my little girl's mouth and she died in my arms."

Would you rather have Saddam, Gauche?  I'm quite sure you would.  Why?  Because you are not living in Iraq.

So sit there and whine about the destruction America has brought to Iraq.  This is nothing new to the Iraqi people.  What is different is that we are there to make it stop.  Saddam was there to perpetuate it.

you guys are incredible. you actually believe that iraq was fractured into separate regions controlled by militias under saddam? you think that there was a widespread humanitarian crisis with millions of refugees being driven out the country? and you think that every news outlet in the world failed to report it? please tell me that you are joking.

in 1988 the baath party had the full support of the us government. the weapons that were used in that masacre came from the us. now that the american government put that guy there and funded his worst atrocities you want to come in and rescue everyone from the threat you created and kill more people in the rescue attempt than have been killed by what you're supposedly rescuing them from. is this not a joke to anyone except me?   

Gauche,

I don't think you really care what happens to Iraq.  From reading your posts it is clear that your only concern is that America is left ruined.  Whether we deserve it or not, at least be honest that you couldn't care less about the Iraqis. 

lmao, that video is funny.

I am really curious how we are supposed to "engage the Islamic countries in a diplomatically productive way". The countries we are having problems with are controlled by dictators and religious fundys. If there is anything we have learned from this website is you can't reason with a religious fundy any more than you can reason with a rabid dog. (Actually, you probably have a better chance with the dog.)

Diplomacy is great when it works but when one side is bent on killing you and your entire way of life and that is all they want, how do you negotiate with that?

If the US were able to withdraw 100% from every foreign country and become total isolationist would they leave us alone? I doubt it.

It doesn't have to accept a 'white western occupation force', ever. What Iraq needs is a chance to build a foundation for governing their own nation.

Yeah, someone would win in the end and it will be all over. Who cares about that dirty stuff in between. I get a warm fuzzy feeling just thinking about it. Shiites and Sunnis in the end, holding hands realizing the error of their ways and promising to start over fresh...

What do you think the outcome of a civil war would really be? Would it matter if the ruling power might try to exterminate its opponents? Is the option of peace under a oppressing government better than fighting for a just one? How long could it last? What would the human toll be? It sounds so easy, but if you think about it the results could be far worse than what any of us have seen untill now.

In regards to negotiation, what are we negotiating?? Why do we have the right to tell them what they can and can't do?? We have nukes, why can't they have them?? Maybe, just maybe they are not negotiating because we are imposing our will upon them for no reason and they are saying "Who do these people think they are, telling us we can't defend ourselves".  What did Iran or Iraq ever do to us??? Nothing. Are we going to police the world.

Am I the only one who sees the hypocrisy in everything we are doing?? We act like everybody should do what we say or else we will bomb you because we call you a terrorist state w/o any evidence. Who the hell made up a terrorist state anyway?? What is a terrorist state?  

I completely agree with you on spreading our ideas and not sticking our heads in the sand. However, do we have to be so confrontational and putting our boots down on people to do so? Why do we need to bomb people to accomplish that? Part of the story in the Iraq that was underreported was that before the insurgency local communities started to govern themselves and were living civily. Well, Bremer and Bush would have none of that and we forced our way of doing things on the people of these towns. The most notable town is Fallujah. As a result, we have the resistance that we have now. They don't want us in there country.

Naw, if anyone (besides us, ) attacked Canada we would attack their invaders immediately. We share the longest undefended border in the world with our northern neighbor. Not just that, but if we lose Canada we lose a major source of good Hollywood actors and actresses. Intolerable. The american government and the american people would never accept any other reaction than immediate assistance. I agree we would ramp up production of military goods and service members quick as shit. However, the US would go to war immediately after a quick "We're coming!" phone call to the Canadian government.

And I'm saying this way down here close to Mexico. People in the North would probably start loading their rifles immediately. lol

You know that actually sucks. They did a poll recently around the world about the most hated and liked countries and the US came out #3 in most hated. I thought that was pretty good for the US.

Canada came out #1 most liked.

So everyone likes Canada, they have free health care, and they have the full strength of the USA to help them out in a pinch.

Eh, but who would ever invade Canada? Everybody likes them apparently. I'd consider moving there but I'm a Texan. I can't drive in the snow and ice. I'd be dead my first winter.

Now if someone invaded Mexico, it would probably depend on who did. If Russia or China did we would assist immediately. But if say, the Australians did it we would phone Australia and say, "Hey Blokes. Why have you decided to invade Mexico, mates?"

If Australia invaded Canada we'd say, "That's not cool! Back off!"

Oh, so we want to bring it back to the serious shit? Ok.

Compare a rogue fundamentally religious run country that believes in eternal life after death developing nuclear weapons to a "conventional"(I.E. non nuclear) war to counter an invasion?

I tried to back off this fight though I found a lot of things to fight against with those that disagreed with me.

However, if you are stating that Iran potentially developing Nuclear armament to protect from the invasion of Iraq is comparable to the USA sending troops to defend Canada to protect itself then I have a BIG BEEF with what you are saying.

Iran is developing nuclear bombs to clear out americans that are in Iraq should they invade? The Iranians are going to NUKE american bases in Iraq or invading forces within Iran itself? That's their plan?

Did I say that the US would decide to send Nuclear strikes within Canada to protect Canada from invasion?

Kinda missing the point, Iraq is already in a civil war which will continue indefinitely and western forces are just prolonging it, with the west in the middle.

The 'surge' according to the rest of the world media  has been a complete waste of time , Basra in the south is now run by milita.

We have lost in Iraq and Afghanistan (not that winning hearts of minds was ever a realistic aim).

Iraq cannot even being to rebuild until a) civil war is over b) no occuping forces which are part of tihs war 

I get the point, you can see into the future.

I realize that Iraqis are dying everday at the hands of other Iraqis. As I live in Germany, I get my news from a much different viewpoint as America's news sources. I even spent 7 months touring Iraq with a radar in tow. What is happening in Iraq, from what I've seen, read and watched is far from an all out civil war.

The militias, even while controlling areas of Iraq, are being held in check by U.S. and Iraqi forces. They have an elected government that is willing to work with every religious fraction.

Ummm... convincing them not to make Nukes and not to "wipe Israel off the map".

Are you serious? I have a gun, why shouldn't all the murderers in prison? A nuke is a very dangerous thing. It has the power to wipe out an entire city and cause untold death afterwards through radiation. Enough nukes can destroy an entire country. Theoretically, enough nukes could wipe out most of humanity on the planet Earth. No big deal. Everyone should have a nuke in their home.

Some people simply should not be trusted with nukes because they might use them. Then what do we do? If a nuke blows up in America, do we strike back with our own nukes and level an entire country civilians and all? Or do we fail to respond in kind and allow them to potentially detonate more nukes on our soil killing even more of us.

International politics is NOT about FAIRNESS. We have an interest in making sure that no one who might use such weapons obtains them. Is it fair? No. but I don't care. I would rather live.

Maybe they aren't negotiating because they don't care what we think and are going to wipe out Israel because they hate Jews and then carry their jihad out on the West because we are immoral zionist pigs. Dress it up how you like, the radical islamic movement is going to stop at nothing to kill you whether you are nice to them or not. Maybe an argument could be made that our actions in the past have created an environment where such radicalism could take root and gain a following but it is too late now. If you believe that stopping all our involvement would cause them to just forget about us and live peacefully by our side you are delusional.

Lets see, when Ayatollah Khomeini overthrew the Iranian government in 1979 he called America the "Great Satan" and encouraged anti-americanis at a time when our involvement with Iran was mostly economic and our only concern with them was making sure they didn't ally with the Soviet Union. Then there was the Iran Hostage Crisis of 1979. Then Hezbollah, a paramilitary organization of Ayatollah Khomeini's followers, started carrying out terrorist bombings against US targets such as the 1983 Embassy bombings, 1983 Beirut (which is in Lebanon not Iran if you didn't know) Barracks bombings and the 1996 Khobar Towers bombings. To this day, there is strong evidence that Iran financially supports known terrorist organizations.

When it comes to WMDs? Yes.

The UN has attempted to prevent the proliferation of nukes. It has created a system of inspecters to determine whether or not countries are creating wmds. In Iraq, Saddam played games with them and refused to allow the inspectors full access even when the threat of force was leveled. America decided to follow up its threats with action. Although I posit that the main purpose of attacking Iraq was to set the stage for an eventual battle with Iran.

Some countries have been far more cooperative with the US such as North Korea. Which had an active Nuclear Weapons program but ceased and has begun to dismantle their weapons under the scrutiny of the UN. Unlike Iraq, they have made no attempt to hold back the UN inspections. And we are no longer considering war with them. Wow, funny how that works. Although, I hope we are keeping a close eye on them because I do not trust Kim Jong-Il.

Iran has not been cooperative with UN inspectors. They claim to have stopped their nuclear program but have not offered proof and untethered access to the UN like North Korea has.  

A terrorist state is a country that actively funds terrorist activities and/or knowingly shelters terrorists within its borders.

Terrorists are people who use tactics primarily aimed at creating fear in the civilian population such as taking hostages to torture and murder or bombing purely civilian targets like bus stations, hospitals the twin towers etc.

   what a fucking racket the greedy rich has got going , war for  idiots, it's no way to solve any problem, if it was I'd say nuke em all now ..... get it over with ?,

but then what do we do with the new zombie sick people , just keep killing them ?  would we bomb L.A. to get rid of the gangs ?

Give me Kim and Ahmadinejad and Bush for a few months, .... and billions of bucks ....  I am peace,  make me king .... Love bombs are a hell of lot cheaper and much more effective .... lets  get the job done .... love the enemy ?  of course ....