This Iraq war is pointless

we've been their what 5-6 years already...possible massacre...
well they've already had somewhat of a massacre already including
a lot of shed...they are already in a civil war. I think Iran should stay out of this
shouldn't we have already within five years made sure that they got a democratic gov
intilized it's b.s. that they aren't democratic like they should be
how long as religion been around and yet especially today it is extremists
which are muslims though the moderate muslims don't speak up
they continue to kill each other in the name of the other half of the Quran
the second half which is bad...
if you ask me all this religious war and they have yet to see Allah, or God
as they claim...they should all be moderate they should all be tolerant

I mean the suicide bombers have said in the name of Allah yet in most religions
actually all religions say suicide leads to hell

to kill a non believer is Wrong...Allah would never say that therefore
making Mohammed seem delusional what if his visions were delusions
he was once peaceful and then became a warmonger these are facts
I already researched

so how can they look to a prophet that was once peaceful that lead to being
a warmonger...a warmonger is not a prophet !

if you ask me many middle easterners such as Afganistan, Pakistan are possessed by demons


http://www.beliefnet.com/boards_mini/index.asp?pageID=62&boardID=43917


http://www.prophetofdoom.net/article.aspx?g=407&i=4720

It's not our job to completely democrasize Iraq someone said he thinks Iraq won't be fully democratic in 2015 who knows it's not our job
they are already in a civil war mosques have been attacked
and destroyed isn't that bad enough and the extremists
once we leave if they continue to fight again and can't learn peace then
"F" them

 

Four, actually.

Is it a civil war or an unpopular uprising? The difference would mean a lot.

Neat. How would you like to convince them of that?

There is a popularly-elected government currently in power in Iraq right now.

The only thing hindering their democracy now is the presence of an extremist insurgency. That's why we're still there, to help them to the point where they'll be able to maintain their democracy without outside help.

Second half which is bad? They should all be moderate? Yeah, so should we all. Will we? No. There's a little thing called human nature that prevents everyone from conforming to set of ideal types. Ideal types exist but not everyone follows them.

As with all things in religion there are always loopholes for this.

And they have what bearing on this...?

By what definition?

That's obviously the most logical explanation.

http://www.beliefnet.com/boards_mini/index.asp?pageID=62&boardID=43917


http://www.prophetofdoom.net/article.aspx?g=407&i=4720

Iraq is democratic today; it is a relatively small minority of the population who are violent insurgents. We're not "democrasizing" Iraq because it isn't possible to force rule of/by the people on a nation; if you try to you're not creating a democracy, you're creating a dictatorship. Remember how all the communist countries like to use monikers like "People's Republic of..." or "Democratic Republic of..."? Those weren't democracies but they pretended to be; what we've created in Iraq is an actual democracy with a minority population that is unwilling to support democracy.

 

There is a popularly-elected government currently in power in Iraq right now.
then we should leave soon !


The extremists should fold ! the other half of the Quran is trash !

As with all things in religion there are always loopholes for this??? eh???

by what means...??? in Buddism...in catholicism...to commit suicide is a sin

then we need to tell these insurgents to fold they are in a lost cause who are corrupt by demons

Cause to be a prophet...and what it means to be is that of God
and war is a defense...and can be an offense...
God is not a war monger infact he hates that

 

It is not a civil war -- it is sectarian violence to a degree a little higher than gang violence in cities like Detroit or violence in countries like Jamaica. So when there are months where Jamaica has more violence than Iraq, then I assume to would also identify Jamaica as being in a civil war?

Secondly, it is not Iraq that is being contested. It's the four provinces surrounding Baghdad. Most of Iraq is secure as most countries in the world -- just the typical violence that you'd find in cities like New York, London, etc.

We declared Independence in 1776. It wasn't until 1801 that we were even sure our democracy was functioning. Governments take time to build. Rome wasn't created in a day...

I assume you're saying "just let all the Muslims kill each other". While it sounds like it could work and eventually they would just kill each other off --it doesn't work like that. Just look at Africa.

There's that heralded liberal open mindedness on display.

 

And look at all the other **** we went through to get our democracy looking the way we wanted it to. Revolutionary War...Articles of Confederation...Shays' Rebellion...Constitution...Alien and Sedition Acts...

 

No thats called what catholics believe, including Buddists...
suicide is wrong...

maybe we should let the Muslims kill themselves off

 

There is no sufficient level of exclamatory dismay I could even begin to express that would adequately coincide with my reaction to this. What are you talking about?

That flat out one hundred percent would not work. Period.

 

How long did it take to build South Korea into a functioning democracy? Decades. We still have a military presence there. These things don't happen overnight. Today, I look at South Korea and see the success of nation building, and given enough time, we can do the same with Iraq.

 

We had a military presence in Germany for 50 years as well after WW2.

I mean, you could even look at Vietnam...

 

When he brought up Korea my first thought was Germany too.

Maybe its just this thread but I'm terribly confused yet again. I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here. Vietnam, an example of American nation-building? One we could hold up against South Korea, West Germany, and perhaps someday Iraq?

I'm honestly confused. Why'd you bring up Vietnam?

 

The problem with examples like South Korea and Germany is that there are key differences between them and Iraq.

The German's did not want to fight by the end of the second world war. They had begun the war and in the end the population accepted defeat. Not to mention the fact that they were eager to help the West in order to protect themselves from the Russians to the East.

South Korea was invaded so of course the population was eager to rebuild itself. And again we see the incentive of fear as North Korea and China loomed to the North. The removal of American troops would remove all of South Korea's leverage, that's why support was so high.

The key difference is still that this was a pre-emptive war. For the average Iraqi life is not any better now than it was before the war. Just now many of them must deal with brown outs and issues with other civic services. And there is no threat of invasion to rally the Iraqi people. We represent the North Korea and the Russia to the Iraqi people. Because it was us who invaded. I mean you simply look at the numbers. Think of all the Americans who know people who have died in Iraq. Now think of all the Iraqis who knew people who died in the war and since. The blame falls on us because if we weren't there those people would still be alive. This is the difference between this case and the others.

 

I don't really buy the story that the suicide bombers are our fault because they wouldnt be there if we weren't there. Who knows, maybe the people would be alive, maybe they would be being tortured or gased in Saddam's prisons. There are plenty of Iraqis standing up to work with the U.S. as well. Iraqi forces have already taken over security in several areas, and the Iraqi military and police forces are growing daily. As for an outside threat, don't think that Iran wouldn't be quick to step in and assert its authority and extend its Islamic empire. There is also the inside threat. If America stepped out right now there would be a takeover by Islamic fundamentalists and the place would be worse than before. My point is that these things take time. After 4 years of occupation in Germany, no one could have imagined a unified democratic Germany, but we made it happen. After 4 years of involvement in South Korea, no one would have thought that South Korea would ever be able to defend itself from a North Korean invasion without Americans doing most of the fighting, but today South Korea has a military that could more than hold its own against the north. While the outlook today might be daunting, that is not a reason to give up and go home. These projects are a long term commitment with ups and downs, and they almost always begin with the downs.

 

To be honest mate you're a bit of a nutter yourself. You've come on this forum and posted the same link in about four different forums declaring we need to build a wall between two relatively peaceful nations and you have declared that a large number of the worlds peaceful population are posessed by demons. And most 'middle easterners' are peaceful, its just they don't get front page news.

 

South Korea still has major issues today; they still have an opressive government. And while South Korea might be able to handle North Korea the majority of the threat was always posed by China.

My point is that Iraq was in no danger of being overrun by Islamic fundamentalists before we invaded. The 4 years after German occupation looked bleak because of the Russian situation including the Berlin Blockade. Which was created by an outside threat as I mentioned. It was not the result of a division in the German people.

And as I remember it Saddam was convicted on the torture of 148 people and the arrest of 400 others. Which is probably less then those that our own administration has tortured and illegally incarcerated. Also surpression of the Dawa party following the assassination attempt. In reality the intelligence told Saddam that these people were rebels who sought and attempted to overthrow his rule. (Not well known is the fact that he believed they had weapons of mass destruction).

The reality is that for the majority of the Iraqi people the war has done nothing to benefit their lives. As such they have no motivation to work towards an American victory.

Again I say that Germany and South Korea are cases that cannot be compared to Iraq. The entirity of the set-up in those situations were completely different. Korea had been invaded by a foreign nation and we drove them out. Germany was the loser of a war that they themselves had started. The place where problems arise is that Iraq was a stable and functioning country under international sanctions. In the eyes of Iraqis the international community had already tied the countries hands behind its back. And our "pre-emptive" invasion is still difficult for many people to accept. The Iraqis are still as confused about the cause for the war as I am.

 

Because they've become one of our most important trading partners. I forget where I saw it, but I came across a book recently that outlined how Vietnam was America's most successful foreign policy endeavor. I don't really agree with this, but it's an interesting contention.