America! We brought democracy to Iraq!

[Coito ergo sum]

the soldier is shouting "we won, we won"!!

Am I delusional for thinking he looks delusional or am I delusional in all??

We did win, though. Didn't we?

I mean - the bloody Hussein regime is gone, and now Iraq has a nascent function parliamentary government, and peace and stability appears to be restored, generally speaking.

Or, are you suggesting that Obama is leaving the Iraqis to fend for themselves and descend into bloody tyranny and civil war?

peace restored. You are joking. They won nothing, removed one ass only to be shortly replaced by an american approved ass.

When that happens, let me know. Right now, they have a parliamentary government which can elect and remove various asses. And, Hussein wasn't merely an ass, or if he was he was an ass of Oprah proportions.

Wow, some things written here are simply amazing.

Every time I read your posts I think the same thing.

[Animavore]

The US wasn't at war with anyone in 2000.

Yah they were http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Colombia

A war on drugs that is

[maiforpeace]

The US wasn't at war with anyone in 2000.

Yah they were http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Colombia

A war on drugs that is

We won that one too, eh?

[Animavore]

The US wasn't at war with anyone in 2000.

Yah they were http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Colombia

A war on drugs that is

We won that one too, eh?

You can win it quite easily. Decriminalise it.

[BrettA]

The US wasn't at war with anyone in 2000.

Yah they were http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Colombia

A war on drugs that is

We won that one too, eh?

[Ian]

The US wasn't at war with anyone in 2000.

Yah they were http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Colombia

A war on drugs that is

We won that one too, eh?

You can win it quite easily. Decriminalise it.

Just wait until I'm Emperor. Just wait.

[Coito ergo sum]

the soldier is shouting "we won, we won"!!

Am I delusional for thinking he looks delusional or am I delusional in all??

We did win, though. Didn't we?

I mean - the bloody Hussein regime is gone, and now Iraq has a nascent function parliamentary government, and peace and stability appears to be restored, generally speaking.

Or, are you suggesting that Obama is leaving the Iraqis to fend for themselves and descend into bloody tyranny and civil war?

No, sorry, it's just me. The poor soldier is happy to go home and I don't blame him, but it's not such clear victory as it sounds.

In what way has this not been a victory?

ANd I guess the best is yet to come to the US in the form of oil, I guess.

You mean, the best meaning that Iraq has oil, and sells it on the open market?

Is that where the victory is? Will there now be freedom and democracy in Iraq?

Yes, at least more than previously and also without the systematic process of rape and torture by police of political dissidents, the complete rigging of elections to elect the same leader over and over again with 99% of the vote, the complete elimination of the rights of free speech, press, etc......

What kind of democracy will it be with Islam laws overshadowing democracy laws?

The kind of democracy in Iraq is a "federal parliamentary representative democratic republic." It is a multi-party system whereby the executive power is exercised by the Prime Minister of the Council of Ministers as the the head of government, as well as the President of Iraq, and legislative power is vested in the Council of Representatives and the Federation Council. The current Prime Minister of Iraq is Nouri al-Maliki, who holds most of the executive authority and appoints the Council of Ministers, which acts as a cabinet and/or government. The current Presidency Council, a transitional replacement for the President of Iraq who serves largely as a figurehead with few powers, is composed of Jalal Talabani, Tariq al-Hashimi, and Adel Abdul Mehdi.

I don't understand? HOw will it all work?

Kind of like the recent election on 7 March 2010. The election decided the 325 members of the Council of Representatives of Iraq who will elect the Iraqi Prime Minister and President. The election resulted in a partial victory for the Iraqi National Movement, led by former Interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, which won a total of 91 seats, making it the largest alliance in the Council. The State of Law Coalition, led by incumbent Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki, was the second largest grouping with 89 seats.

Will there be public schools?

Yes. Iraq has public schools.

Are Christians going to be bombed or allowed to co/exist with muslims?

Many Christians live in Iraq - the Chaldean population, for example. They are allowed to coexist. Unfortunately, to get a deal cut in Iraq, the US caved in to allowing Iraq to be officially Islamic. That sucks, but the important thing is that they have a republic where representatives are elected and can be voted out of office, and that basic human rights be protected.

What kind of jobs will there be?

Doctors, lawyers, dentists, construction workers, pharmacists, engineers, oil industry workers, electrical workers, computer professionals, secretaries, managers.......etc....etc....etc...

Will the US also fund the rebuilding of the cities and towns?

No.

how exactly will this move on?

Hopefully, people will get up in the morning and go to work, raise and support families, build a better future for Iraq, and participate in civil government.

[Pensioner]

The US wasn't at war with anyone in 2000.

Yah they were http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Colombia

A war on drugs that is

We won that one too, eh?

You can win it quite easily. Decriminalise it.

Just wait until I'm Emperor. Just wait.

An American Emperor, fucking hell the world would end, silly cunt.

[Coito ergo sum]

Americans always have an ulterior motive, didn't you know that already CES?

I wonder what our ulterior motive is for providing the bulk of aid to devastated Pakistan...

Not only an ulterior motive, but we are always pulling the strings behind everything. We attacked ourselves on 9/11, we installed Saddaam Hussein and then took him out when we didn't like him anymore, we decide which dictators rule which countries all over the world, we control the voting machines, we never want anyone to "really" be free we only want them to do what we say.....

Yeah, we may give more money to more countries than anyone else, but that's just because we're greedy profiteers who are only doing that out of selfishness.

I wouldn't bundle all those together if I were you... some of those are preposterous, but your government DID install and aid Saddam all the way through his atrocities,

Install him? That's simply factually incorrect. The US did NOT install Saddam Hussein, and did not support his ascension to what amounts to a throne. Saddam Hussein installed himself as dictator by a bloody coup. The US also did not "support him all the way through his atrocities." We did support him in the war against Iran, for good reason. However, if you look at where Saddam's weapons and military might came from, it wasn't the US. It was China, Russia, France and other countries, with the US being WAY down on the list. Since the late 1980s, the US had essentially an embargo on Iraq, which other countries ignored.

all the way up to the invasion of Kuwait,

Supporting Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war is not the same thing as installing a dictator and supporting his atrocities.

and the installation of dictators is also well-known... Noriega, Pinochet, Saddam, Pol Pot, and so on.

The US did not install Pol Pot - he was a communist. We opposed Pol Pot. We did not install Saddam - at all. And, I'll give you Pinochet. My point was that people try to paint the US as an all powerful puller-of-all-strings in the world - we install the dictators we want, we kick the ones out we don't want. It's all our fault, because the US can do anything, so if only we'd behave ourselves, then peace would be at hand. I'm not suggesting the US is blameless and lily-white. I'm suggesting that the picture of the US as some all seeing eye is incorrect - I wish it were the case, because it would mean that we in the US are completely safe from foreign attack. But, unfortunately, it's not the case, and the reality is that we live in a dangerous world, and we are at grave risk.

[Trolldor]

Wow, some things written here are simply amazing.

Every time I read your posts I think the same thing.

Really? last time I read his posts I face-palmed so hard I woke up my mother.

[Warren Dew]

If you'd bothered to follow the link in the original post, you would have read what the thread is about.

The link says nothing about getting any money back, let alone getting it back from oil.

The payoff for the U.S. has nothing to do with money; it's having another major state in the middle east that isn't a deadly enemy of the U.S. And yes, for some of us, giving the Iraqis a less repressive government than Lyndon Johnson helped install in 1963 is part of the payoff, too.

[Warren Dew]

In what way has this not been a victory?

Last I checked, the Iraqi government was having trouble selecting a prime minister, and terrorism there was increasing.

The political situation in Iraq is still very unstable, and there's still plenty of opportunity for the U.S. to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory there.

[Eriku]

and the installation of dictators is also well-known... Noriega, Pinochet, Saddam, Pol Pot, and so on.

The US did not install Pol Pot - he was a communist. We opposed Pol Pot. We did not install Saddam - at all. And, I'll give you Pinochet. My point was that people try to paint the US as an all powerful puller-of-all-strings in the world - we install the dictators we want, we kick the ones out we don't want. It's all our fault, because the US can do anything, so if only we'd behave ourselves, then peace would be at hand. I'm not suggesting the US is blameless and lily-white. I'm suggesting that the picture of the US as some all seeing eye is incorrect - I wish it were the case, because it would mean that we in the US are completely safe from foreign attack. But, unfortunately, it's not the case, and the reality is that we live in a dangerous world, and we are at grave risk.

The bombing of Cambodia facilitated their ascension, and when push came to shove with the Vietnamese trying to stake a claim, the US went with letting Pol Pot stay... His regime also received a fair few million in support throughout the 80s.

I know the US isn't the all-seeing evil eye... But the fact that it's routinely shown itself to be incredibly hypocritical and making its choices based on its own interests, rather than the lofty democratic notions being bandied about, is worth pointing out whenever headlines about the US successfully ridding the world of evil tyrannies before moseying into the sunset.

About the Kuwait issue, I can't point to any papers off-hand... I'll have to read up, but I'll assume you've set me straight on that point, for now.

[Ian]

and the installation of dictators is also well-known... Noriega, Pinochet, Saddam, Pol Pot, and so on.

The US did not install Pol Pot - he was a communist. We opposed Pol Pot. We did not install Saddam - at all. And, I'll give you Pinochet. My point was that people try to paint the US as an all powerful puller-of-all-strings in the world - we install the dictators we want, we kick the ones out we don't want. It's all our fault, because the US can do anything, so if only we'd behave ourselves, then peace would be at hand. I'm not suggesting the US is blameless and lily-white. I'm suggesting that the picture of the US as some all seeing eye is incorrect - I wish it were the case, because it would mean that we in the US are completely safe from foreign attack. But, unfortunately, it's not the case, and the reality is that we live in a dangerous world, and we are at grave risk.

The bombing of Cambodia facilitated their ascension, and when push came to shove with the Vietnamese trying to stake a claim, the US went with letting Pol Pot stay... His regime also received a fair few million in support throughout the 80s.

I know the US isn't the all-seeing evil eye... But the fact that it's routinely shown itself to be incredibly hypocritical and making its choices based on its own interests, rather than the lofty democratic notions being bandied about, is worth pointing out whenever headlines about the US successfully ridding the world of evil tyrannies before moseying into the sunset.

I get annoyed whenever I hear that the US supported this or that dictator. For a very long around most of the world we had the choice of dealing with 1) someone who was or was going to be an authoritarian brute, or 2) a leftist authoritarian brute who was aligned with the USSR. It's not like most developing countries had a Thomas Jefferson clone available as option #3, but we just didn't think he'd play ball with us.

Instead of blaming the US for dealing with some unpleasant characters here and there, it might be more appropriate to debate the interventionist stance that the US has taken ever since WWII.

[mistermack]

The link says nothing about getting any money back, let alone getting it back from oil.

Well, my understanding of "investment" is money that they have spent, and want back, usually with interest. He didn't say "Trillion dollar gift".
That's what investment means. You don't leave 50,000 troops protecting a gift.
And what has Iraq got that's worth anything, apart from oil?
.