Iraq doesn't want us there...

[AntiGnostic]

Originally Posted by Viper Daimao

Monarchism is immoral.

Not to be critical, but how is Morachism immoral? As many evils that have happened under Monarchies have happened under democracies. We all remember the French revoulution and it's aftermath.

Anyway, I think that the Iraqis are happy to be liberated. They just don't want us sticking around. Much like the French after WWII, they aren't very grateful.

So, yes, we should hand over power and get out quick. But I still think that Democracy won't hold over there...

We'll just have to wait and see, and work for a better future. As long as there's a new tommorrow, then their's always hope

[cruelty13]

I mean, look at Europe. They may have become "democracies" but in reality, they have achieved only socialism. In a Democracy, the majority rules.

Tell me, have you ever even been to Europe. Socialism is a) either communism or b) Social democracy. There is a difference. Besides. Europe consists of twenty something countries. How can you say that there isn't any democracy here? And is Americas democracy all it's said to be. Do you vote the laws your selves, or do you elect people to vote for them. In that case it's no better then European democracies. Exept your president has more power. Our countries (Estonia) government was organized like yours between 1920-39.

Monarchism is immoral. dictatorism is immoral. Communism is especially immoral.

First of all, which kind of monarchism do you mean. I mean there is a whole variety of them. There is constitutional monarchy, absoulute monarchy, feudalism and centralized monarchy. These days, there is only constitutional monarchy, and how is that immoral. A family living on taxes. if you ask me it's a bit better then demaocracy, because it gives the people a sense of natonalizm (not in a bad way). Our country for example has a president and no one really likes him. Nor his wife.
Dictatorism is immoral when the dictator cares only for making things run in a way that suports and is good for him. But if he really does make living better for the people, then how is it immoral.

As for communism, you can't really say it's immoral, unless you think that people being equal is immoral. It's baddly run Communistic nations, that give communism a bad name. If a nation could actually succeed to make all people equivelent, without making rich poor, but by doing the opposite, then how is it immoral?

A few notes on the real subject. Our nation also went to Iraq and I don't see any point in the war what so ever. I agree with Omega Mage Zero on this matter as he said

So what's left? Democracy? The good of the Iraqi people? How many Iraqis are dead now that wouldn't have been if we hadn't invaded? Over ten thousand. Hasn't been much to their benefit has it?

[Viper Daimao]

any monarchy is immoral, unless you're like england and the monarchy is only a figure head who doesnt have any power. an argument could be made for constitutional monarchy, so thats more of an inbetween.

a dictator may be benevolent and make the country better, but the concept of dictatorship is immoral. just like with monarchism, you have a single person, unelected who has power over the people. they have no control over their govt.

Badly run communist nations? you mean, every communist nation?. yes, being equal is immoral. not the equality we have, thats equality of opportunity. communism is equality of condition, you are not free to become rich, or great, or do what you want. there is no way to make everyone rich. so your talk of making all people equivelent without making rich poor is fantasy. communism destroys wealth, and crushes human spirit. it is perhaps the most immoral of all the forums of govt because of that.

now back to iraq not being ready for democracy. Im not sure what your other alternatives are, but your premise is wrong. from Amir Taheri who just got back from Iraq.

Nor should one believe the claims of self-styled experts that the Iraqis are not ready for freedom. During the past 10 months elections have been held in 37 municipalities. In each case victory went to the moderate, liberal and secular candidates. The former Ba'athists, appearing under fresh labels, failed to win a single seat. Hardline Islamist groups collected 1% to 3% of the vote.

All I have to say on the types of government is this: Look at the differences of nations involved in World War I and World War II. See the differences? See which ones attacked other nations? See which ones showed the lowest they could go?

Anyway, that was just a sidebar. My opinion on this matter is that we probably should never have gone into Iraq in the first place, although given that there might have been a threat of weapons (which has been disproven, but hey, it was a potential threat at first) and the fact that we can establish greater oil trade routes definitely does weigh on my mind.

Should we have gone into Iraq? Probably. Should we still be there? Hell no. Why are we there? Look at the numbers. How many us NON-military citizens (or former citizens for that matter) have been killed? That, to me, really spells "Get the frig out of the country as soon as you can."

I say to hell with the Iraqis and their government. They're senseless animals who kill for no reason. Quite frankly, I think we should turn the entire goddamned place into a parking lot. Make those that are left living walking glowsticks, the US hating bastards.

But yeah, the point is that we shouldn't be there. We have reason to be there anymore. Oh, and if anyone wasn't aware: The potential passing of the draft (yeah, the thing where you get selected to be put in the military and if you say no they lock you up thing) has been partially spawned from this Iraqi nonsense.

From what I read (sorry, I have no article links), US Congress (bunch've drunk assholes who think they're gods) is trying to, in a nutshell, pass the draft with as little publicity as possible. I'm sure most of you HAVE heard of it by this point though, as it's been going on for at least close to 6 months now. Oh yeah, the reason is so that we have "an inexhaustable amount of men for the war on terror." What war on terror? Killing a bunch of people who don't want us in their countries and would sooner kill us in the street, cut our bodies into little pieces, and put them in a big glass display case? I guess that's congress' version of War on Terror.

Anyway...yeah. We need to leave Iraq. Quickly.

(On a quick side note: A regiment originally conisted of roughly 2,000 men. So, that 2,800-3,200 number was a bit off, by close to 50%.)

Moral of the story: Leave the world that hates you alone, or conquer the entire damn thing.

G'day.

[Viper Daimao]

hah, yeah the congress is trying to pass the draft and iraqi's are bunch of animals.
yeah, we've done the whole draft discussion and anyone who thinks the draft is comming back either doesnt know anything about it, or is being intellectually dishonest.

I cant respect anyone who says leave iraq now and leave them to civil war, or foreign invasion. thats you know, kinda the opposite of what were set out to accomplish.

To underscore that point that Iraqi's are not all bloodthirsty animals, let me point out how much of the violence Al Qaeda and foreign fighters are behind. Iraqi blogger Hammorabi's breakdown of the the foreign fighters killed in one US strike on Fallujah underscores the point:
Nationality Number
Saudi 5
Somalia 2
Emirates 1
Yemen 1
Morocco 1
Algeria 1
Syria 1
Libya 1
Kurdistan 1
China 1
Mauritania 1

I can see your point very clearly, and don't necessarily disagree with your view points, but I still see it as this: I would not want to help a group of men who wished for no more than a horrible, agonizing death upon me. Based on that (and practically that alone) I think we should leave. Or decrease our numbers further, in the least. The sooner our men get out of there, the better off we are. I mean...look at what happened last time we helped out Iraq (Against the Soviets in the 80s. ) What'd they do? Used it against us. They will only do the same with this.

And, yes, I do not believe the draft will get passed, but off the wall, nearly impossible things have happened. Sitting around and doing nothing about it could leave a world of surprises for you. (I would further mention that politicians care only for their large paychecks, royalties, and prestige. Not the constituants that they "work for." )

There's me two pennies.

[Viper Daimao]

Whatever happened to us and Iraq before the invasion is totally different than now. Iraq before the invasion = Saddam Hussein, and nothing else.

as to leaving, you are looking at in a very skewed way. We are not helping a group of men wanting to kill us, we are destroying them. Just look at all the recent violence this week. the timing obviously shows you were are on the right track. the terrorists, foreign fighters and saddam loyalists are trying everything they can to stop us from turning over power to the Iraqis themselves.
try to think about what you are saying in a different light. say someone has broken into your home or something and you call the cops, but the cops refuse to come because the people in the house across the street hate the cops and will shoot at the cops.

The cops practically do that, anyway. Besides, the US soldiers are not the police of the world. I do think we've done as much as we can, and our presence only further provides malignant feeling and more death.

I think we're taking too long in trying to establish a democracy over there. Not all people are ready for it. That highly includes the Iraqis, I think. Some people are more comfortable with a dictatorship. I think they're nuts, but, hey, that's just me. Also, most (not all, but most) of the people in Iraq really hate us. Don't get me wrong, I've seen inverviews with some (mainly the government and police forces) Iraqis who said they like our presence because it provides them with more opportunities. However, that's only a few. I think it's just about time to get our troops out of that country and bring them home. Not standing around waiting for another car bomb to kill a few more good men.

I would just like to note that yes, it is necessary for at least some US troops to stay, but not as many as there are. Hopefully within a short amount of time we'll be out of there. (The date set by the UN was June 30th, if I am not mistaken. Hopefully the US will hold true to that and get our troops out....)

[Starbuck_II]

With Saddam in a Unfair biased Trial, I don't see Democracy coming to Iraq anytime soon.
Look if you think the court case us fair or unbaised you are living under a rock.
Baised: The judge and all the jury are people he opposed. Victims make poor unbaised people, no?
Fair: He is not being looked at as inocent, as Fox News says," he doesn't have a chance but might as well make try."
That was Fox News the "fair and Balanced" News lol (yeah right) channel. So as you can see Saddam is not being fairly tried.

If Saddam won, do you really think America/Bush would let him get away without punishment? No, we own all the power there.

Secondly, Saddam should be tried in the Hague. A International Court where less unfair/bias would happen. Safer for lawyers and stuff too.

try to think about what you are saying in a different light. say someone has broken into your home or something and you call the cops, but the cops refuse to come because the people in the house across the street hate the cops and will shoot at the cops.

You in a Black Neighborhood? No joke, I know a few ones like that. The cops don't come because its too dangerous.

As you can see Viper: not all Monarchies, Communist, and Dictators people want American Democracy.
After all, no republicans/conservatives got votes in Iraq elections you posted just liberals JK

[Christopher]

Going back to the system of government thing, I believe there are many possibilities and if the people are relatively happy and prosperous, let them be. I do think dictatorships are wrong simply for the potential for someone anywhere along the line to be corrupt with no checks.

Communism, I believe is wrong. Not just failed communist states, but communism's ideal. Very few countries if any have actually excercised ideal communism in every detail, true, but it's still wrong. Communism in its purest form calls for no religion. Most communist societies replace that with one state religion (Taoism in China for example) But you have a fundamental problem, whether it's a religion or lack thereof, that no one person's religion should be any more valid than another's. Communism is mostly wrong for the fact that it takes away the freedom of choice. No freedom of speach since that's a danger to the society, the state tells you what job you'll work, based on where you're needed. You can not gain money or grow. You can't even choose to leave the system if you disagree with it. Citizens in a communist country stagnate because they are prohibited from trying to better themselves. I do think that poor people should be taken care of, however not everyone is equal. Their worth as people is equal, and their rights should be, but some people are better at some things, and some people simply have more willpower and desire to make something of themselves. Ideally, then I would think that to meet the needs of both sides, I would say, The government is responsible for the survival of its citizens. It always has been ever since we ceded power to governments in prehistoric times. But success is up to the individual.

I think Utopia would have two major ideals:

1)Respect the right of everyone else to think, believe, and do what they want (so long as doing does not harm someone else)

2)Respect life. Killing is a serious evil and in today's world people are desensitized to it.